Inconsistencies between G-9102 and G-2185

[PhilippSalvisberg]

The following code throws a G-2185 for the identifier i (ok) but no warning of G-9102 for i (inconsistent):

declare
   i integer := 0;  -- violates G-2185, not used in while loop condition nor exit condition
   j integer;       -- does not violate G-2185, used in exit condition
begin
   <<demo>>
   loop
      j := i;
      exit demo when j = 10;
      i := i + 1;
   end loop demo;
end;
/

The next example uses also overly short variable names, but not i nor j:

declare
   a integer := 0;  -- violates G-2185, not used in while loop condition nor exit condition, violates G-9102
   b integer;       -- does not violate G-2185, used in exit condition, violates G-9102
begin
   <<demo>>
   loop
      b := a;
      exit demo when b = 10;
      a := a + 1;
   end loop demo;
end;
/

This time there are G-9102 violations for a and b because they are not handled as exceptions in G-9102.

Instead of defining a list of exceptions as in

plsql-cop-validators/src/main/java/com/trivadis/tvdcc/validators/TrivadisPlsqlNaming.java

Line 87 in 2d1ae49

private static String VALID_LOCAL_VARIABLE_NAMES = "^([ij])$";

we should use the same logic as for G-2185 to identify the local variables to be checked.

[PhilippSalvisberg]

closed via 6953d53