Issue #7643: Update doc for IllegalInstantiation #9181

himanshurijal · 2021-01-13T18:09:56Z

Issue #7643:
I closed the previous PR #9154

Add code example

Output of default example:

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

public class MyTest {
  public class Boolean {
    boolean a;

    public Boolean (boolean a) { this.a = a; }
  }

  public void myTest (boolean a, int b) {
    Boolean c = new Boolean(a); // OK
    java.lang.Boolean d = new java.lang.Boolean(a); // OK

    Integer e = new Integer(b); // OK
    Integer f = Integer.valueOf(b); // OK
  }
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/default_properties/my_checks.xml IllegalInstantiation/default_properties/MyTest.java
Starting audit...
Audit done.

Output of non-default example:

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
        <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer"/>
        <property name="tokens" value = "CLASS_DEF, LITERAL_NEW, PACKAGE_DEF, IMPORT" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

public class MyTest {
  public class Boolean {
    boolean a;

    public Boolean (boolean a) { this.a = a; }
  }

  public void myTest (boolean a, int b) {
    Boolean c = new Boolean(a); // OK
    java.lang.Boolean d = new java.lang.Boolean(a); // violation, instantiation of
                                                    // java.lang.Boolean should be avoided

    Integer e = new Integer(b); // violation, instantiation of java.lang.Integer
                                // should be avoided
    Integer f = Integer.valueOf(b); // OK
  }
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/classes_Boolean,Integer,Double/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/classes_Boolean,Integer,Double/MyTest.java

Starting audit...
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/classes_Boolean,Integer,Double/MyTest.java:10:27: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/classes_Boolean,Integer,Double/MyTest.java:13:17: Instantiation of java.lang.Integer should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
Audit done.
Checkstyle ends with 2 errors.

Output of non-default example:

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
          <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer,java.lang.Double" />
          <property name="tokens" value = "LITERAL_NEW, PACKAGE_DEF, IMPORT" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

public class MyTest {
  public class Boolean {
    boolean a;

    public Boolean (boolean a) { this.a = a; }
  }

  public void myTest (boolean a, int b) {
    Boolean c = new Boolean(a); // violation, instantiation of
                                // java.lang.Boolean should be avoided
    java.lang.Boolean d = new java.lang.Boolean(a); // violation, instantiation of
                                                    // java.lang.Boolean should be avoided

    Integer e = new Integer(b); // violation, instantiation of java.lang.Integer
                                // should be avoided
    Integer f = Integer.valueOf(b); // OK
  }
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/MyTest.java

Starting audit...
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:9:17: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:11:27: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:14:17: Instantiation of java.lang.Integer should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
Audit done.
Checkstyle ends with 3 errors.

Output of non-default example:

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
        <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean[], Boolean[],
          java.lang.Integer[], Integer[]"/>
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

public class MyTest {
  public void myTest () {
    Boolean[] newBoolArray = new Boolean[]{true,true,false}; // OK
    Integer[] newIntArray = new Integer[]{1,2,3}; // OK
  }
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/array_classes/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/array_classes/tokens/MyTest.java

Starting audit...
Audit done.

himanshurijal · 2021-01-13T18:58:51Z

I closed the previous PR #9154 trying to fix the same issue due to problems with branch naming, which is fixed now in this PR.

Additional examples were also added at the request of reviewer @romani.

I did not add an example for property tokens in the documentation because it was not clear what extra validation the property provided (as compared to declaring it explicitly in the config file).

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
          <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer,java.lang.Double" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

 public class MyTest {
    public void myTest (boolean a, int b, double c) {
      Boolean d = new Boolean(a); 
      Integer e = new Integer(b); 
      Double f = new Double(c); 
    }
 }

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java

Starting audit...
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:3:19: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:4:19: Instantiation of java.lang.Integer should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:5:18: Instantiation of java.lang.Double should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
Audit done.
Checkstyle ends with 3 errors.

Upon testing property tokens with the value set to, IMPORT, LITERAL_NEW, PACKAGE_DEF, CLASS_DEF, "" (list of acceptable tokens for this check), all of them yielded the same result compared to excluding property tokens from the config file. (only one attached here for brevity):

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
          <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer,java.lang.Double" />
          <property name = "tokens" value = "CLASS_DEF" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

 public class MyTest {
    public void myTest (boolean a, int b, double c) {
      Boolean d = new Boolean(a); 
      Integer e = new Integer(b); 
      Double f = new Double(c); 
    }
 }

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java

Starting audit...
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:3:19: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:4:19: Instantiation of java.lang.Integer should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:5:18: Instantiation of java.lang.Double should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
Audit done.
Checkstyle ends with 3 errors.

Interestingly, the following configuration yields the result:

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
          <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer,java.lang.Double" />
          <property name = "tokens" value = "CLASS_DEF" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

public interface MyTest {
    static final Boolean d = new Boolean(true);
    static final Integer e = new Integer(true);
    static final Double f = new Double(true);
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java

Starting audit...
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:2:30: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:3:30: Instantiation of java.lang.Integer should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/tokens_null/MyTest.java:4:29: Instantiation of java.lang.Double should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
Audit done.
Checkstyle ends with 3 errors.

I don't know if the check is also supposed to show errors for when the user uses an interface instead of a class. I was expecting using tokens with CLASS_DEF to only check for classes and not interfaces (parsed as token INTERFACE_DEF).

nrmancuso · 2021-01-18T22:53:48Z

@himanshurijal I missed a lot of things in my original review; I apologize. I did not look deeply into the logic for the check and trusted existing documentation too much. You have done well to question the check implementation/ documentation above. After evaluating the code in the check, and reviewing your notes above, there are a few things that I notice:

Inclusion of the CLASS_DEF token
This token is included in the check so that classes defined in the check do not cause violation. We should make this obvious in the documentation. However, the CLASS_DEF token is not required; it would be good to have an example config with CLASS_DEF token and one without. In the code example for each, define a class, and show that the CLASS_DEF token is necessary if the user wants to avoid violations for classes defined in the same file. This is also a good way to check that this actually works as intended.

The table might be confusing, since it does not list the actual tokens that we are checking
IMPORT, LITERAL_NEW, and PACKAGE_DEF. I think it would be good to mention that this check looks at imports and the package definition to determine if an instantiation is of a class from another package (in the "Description"), but it would be misleading to include IMPORT and PACKAGE_DEF in the properties table, since that is implementation logic. I also believe it would be good to add the LITERAL_NEW token to the table, since that is the token we are actually checking.

This check should only show violations on the new operator, regardless if it occurs in an interface, class, etc. The other tokens help determine if there should be a violation on each instance of new.

romani · 2021-01-19T00:23:02Z

I think it would be good to mention that this check looks at imports and the package definition to determine if an instantiation is of a class from another package

no need, such tokens are required, user can not modify them. It is internal details that we process such tokens. We never do this.

it would be good to have an example config with CLASS_DEF token and one without.

yes!

himanshurijal · 2021-01-19T14:15:25Z

Thank you for the detailed explanation @nmancus1 . I now understand what the property tokens is trying to do.

However, before I add more examples I wanted to clarify a few things first.

it would be good to have an example config with CLASS_DEF token and one without

How do you disable CLASS_DEF in tokens? Using the following configuration did not work as expected.

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
          <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean" />
          <property name = "tokens" value = "" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat MyTest.java

public class MyTest {

    public class Boolean {
        boolean a;

        public Boolean (boolean a) { this.a = a; }
    }

    public void myTest (boolean b) {
        Boolean c = new Boolean(b); // Expected violation here with tokens set to empty string
    }
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/MyTest.java
Starting audit...
Audit done.

Checkstyle ends without any errors. I am guessing using an empty string leads tokens to default to the list of acceptable tokens (CLASS_DEF included).
However, using tokens with any other values from the list of acceptable tokens, for example <property name = "tokens" value = "LITERAL_NEW" />, leads to a violation at the expected line.

Does this check also consider classes defined in the same package? For example:

$ cat my_checks.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
          "-//Checkstyle//DTD Checkstyle Configuration 1.3//EN"
          "https://checkstyle.org/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
      <module name="IllegalInstantiation">
          <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean" />
          <property name = "tokens" value = "CLASS_DEF" />
      </module>
  </module>
</module>

$ cat Boolean.java  // inside same package as MyTest.java

package tokens;
public class Boolean {
    boolean b;

    public Boolean (boolean b) {
        this.b = b;
    }
    
    public void printLocalBool () { System.out.println("My Boolean!"); }
}

$ cat MyTest.java 

package tokens;
public class MyTest {
    public void myTest (boolean b) {
        Boolean c = new Boolean(b); // Expected no violation with tokens set to CLASS_DEF
        c.printLocalBool();
    }
}

$ java -jar checkstyle-8.39-all.jar -c IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/my_checks.xml  IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/MyTest.java
Starting audit...
[ERROR] /Users/himanshurijal/Desktop/CheckStyle/IllegalInstantiation/src/tokens/MyTest.java:4:21: Instantiation of java.lang.Boolean should be avoided. [IllegalInstantiation]
Audit done.
Checkstyle ends with 1 errors.

Sorry for the lengthy examples. But, I feel like they add more clarity to what I am trying to ask.

nrmancuso · 2021-01-19T17:40:52Z

I am guessing using an empty string leads tokens to default to the list of acceptable tokens (CLASS_DEF included).

This is correct. After some more digging, I have found this to be true for all checks that are children of TreeWalker. See

checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/TreeWalker.java

Lines 201 to 204 in e5d4378

    
           final Set<String> checkTokens = check.getTokenNames(); 
        
           if (checkTokens.isEmpty()) { 
        
               tokens = check.getDefaultTokens(); 
        
           }

. FYI @romani

Using your above examples with contrasting configs: https://gist.github.com/nmancus1/7aa17723f1af911f8a7dec3ff39fde81

Does this check also consider classes defined in the same package...

Here is a good example of package checking:

https://gist.github.com/nmancus1/6c52ad7dbd504f99991a59af72566939

Sorry for the lengthy examples. But, I feel like they add more clarity to what I am trying to ask.

No need for apologies, your examples helped me to help you. Checkstyle has a lot of code, there is no way for anyone to know all of it. Open source is about working together :)

I would include some form of all above examples to help users to understand how exactly this check works. Show how package name is used, show how token config affects violations, etc. Any question that you have had while working on this is probably a question that users will have.

himanshurijal · 2021-01-20T05:47:12Z

@nmancus1 I updated doc with new examples from our discussion. If you could review when you have time, that'd be great.

src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalInstantiationCheck.java

nrmancuso

Please demonstrate package name checking (where check is aware of the package name and illegal class, so it causes violation since we are in that package) as in my second example (please just use another class though, not boolean). You can add it to one of the existing examples. One other item:

src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalInstantiationCheck.java

nrmancuso · 2021-01-21T11:41:00Z

Github, generate site

github-actions · 2021-01-21T11:47:36Z

https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7643-update-doc-IllegalInstantiationCheck_2021114644/index.html

nrmancuso · 2021-01-21T12:50:21Z

Link to check documentation: https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7643-update-doc-IllegalInstantiationCheck_2021114644/config_coding.html#IllegalInstantiation

romani · 2021-01-22T17:55:20Z

nice progress ....
@himanshurijal, unfortunately this Check is not obvious, so your work will be highly valuable for users.

unfortunately I found example hard to understand ... main reason is that example java code block is different all the time.
We need single code block that used for all configs, so user will easily see how Check behavior is changing by simply manipulation in config.
Because user do not want to change his code, he want to adjust Check to his preference and his expectations.

Please use:

public class MyTest {
  public class Boolean {
    boolean a;

    public Boolean (boolean a) { this.a = a; }
  }

  public void myTest (boolean b) {
    Boolean c = new Boolean(b); // violation, instantiation of java.lang.Boolean
                                // should be avoided
    java.lang.Boolean d = new java.lang.Boolean(b); // violation, instantiation of
                                                    // java.lang.Boolean should be avoided

  Integer d = new Integer(a); // violation, instantiation of java.lang.Integer
                                // should be avoided
    Integer e = Integer.valueOf(b); // OK
  }
}

it might be good to be for all configs.

from doc: https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7643-update-doc-IllegalInstantiationCheck_2021114644/config_coding.html#IllegalInstantiation

There is a limitation that it is currently not possible to specify array classes.

Please add case in example to make it visual or user.

To configure the check to avoid violations for local classes vs classes defined in the check, for example, java.lang.Boolean:

and

To configure the check to find instantiations of java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer, or java.lang.Double

are almost identical by configuration, please merge it to To configure the check to find instantiations of java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer, or java.lang.Double

<module name="IllegalInstantiation">
  <property name="classes" value="java.lang.Boolean"/>
  <property name="tokens" value="LITERAL_NEW, PACKAGE_DEF,
    IMPORT"/>
</module>

It is magic for user why "tokens" value="LITERAL_NEW, PACKAGE_DEF,IMPORT" is allowed.
and it is big conceptual problem in Checkstyle :(.
To resolve this confusion please use wording like:
To configure the check to allow violations for local classes vs classes defined in the check you need to define token value to not mention CLASS_DEF, so value should be IMPORT, LITERAL_NEW,PACKAGE_DEF (list of required tokens).

himanshurijal · 2021-01-22T18:11:05Z

Thank you for reviewing @romani

Please use:

public class MyTest {
  public class Boolean {
    boolean a;

    public Boolean (boolean a) { this.a = a; }
  }

  public void myTest (boolean b) {
    Boolean c = new Boolean(b); // violation, instantiation of java.lang.Boolean
                                // should be avoided
    java.lang.Boolean d = new java.lang.Boolean(b); // violation, instantiation of
                                                    // java.lang.Boolean should be avoided

  Integer d = new Integer(a); // violation, instantiation of java.lang.Integer
                                // should be avoided
    Integer e = Integer.valueOf(b); // OK
  }
}

it might be good to be for all configs.

Just to be clear. Since you recommended me to use that example for all configs, should I remove examples of java.lang.Double in all configs? I wanted to confirm since in last review you wanted me to include examples for java.lang.Double.

romani · 2021-01-22T18:20:39Z

in all configs?

yes , you can, it is not critical, all we need is to show how to define few items in property, so 2 is enough.

himanshurijal · 2021-01-22T18:21:47Z

Understood. I'll make the changes and get back to you.

romani · 2021-01-29T15:48:48Z

@himanshurijal , ping.

himanshurijal · 2021-01-31T17:58:58Z

I apologize for the delay. I was really busy with my coursework. I'll be pushing my changes today.

himanshurijal · 2021-02-01T00:11:35Z

Some points to note:

please merge it to To configure the check to find instantiations of java.lang.Boolean, java.lang.Integer, or java.lang.Double

The second example is the merged example. To avoid the case of misunderstanding where user might believe property tokens is also required in check configuration to find instantiations of specific java.lang classes, I added a NOTE clarifying why the property is used in the example but not necessary to produce the same results for violation.
Also, I am not sure if my example for limitations on specifying array classes is correct (or totally understandable). Please let me know if I need to make changes @romani. Again, sorry for the delay.

romani · 2021-02-07T23:26:42Z

Github, generate site

github-actions · 2021-02-07T23:30:34Z

https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7643-update-doc-IllegalInstantiationCheck_2021232946/index.html

https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7643-update-doc-IllegalInstantiationCheck_2021232946/config_coding.html#IllegalInstantiation

romani · 2021-02-07T23:42:17Z

@himanshurijal , thanks a lot for fix.
Looking forward for more contributions from you.

himanshurijal · 2021-02-08T00:15:03Z

Absolutely! Thank you both for guiding me through the process.

romani requested a review from nrmancuso January 19, 2021 00:24

romani assigned nrmancuso Jan 19, 2021

nrmancuso reviewed Jan 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalInstantiationCheck.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nrmancuso requested changes Jan 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalInstantiationCheck.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalInstantiationCheck.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nrmancuso approved these changes Jan 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalInstantiationCheck.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

romani requested review from romani and rnveach January 20, 2021 17:50

romani self-assigned this Jan 20, 2021

romani removed the request for review from rnveach January 20, 2021 17:50

romani unassigned nrmancuso Jan 22, 2021

romani removed their assignment Jan 29, 2021

romani added the awaiting changes label Jan 30, 2021

Issue #7643: Update doc for IllegalInstantiation

cec2874

romani removed the awaiting changes label Feb 7, 2021

romani merged commit adb2c92 into checkstyle:master Feb 7, 2021

rnveach mentioned this pull request Aug 27, 2022

IllegalInstantiation: make all tokens should be required, so no need to use custom values in tokens property #3955

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Issue #7643: Update doc for IllegalInstantiation #9181

Issue #7643: Update doc for IllegalInstantiation #9181

himanshurijal commented Jan 13, 2021 •

edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 13, 2021 •

edited

nrmancuso commented Jan 18, 2021 •

edited

romani commented Jan 19, 2021 •

edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 19, 2021

nrmancuso commented Jan 19, 2021 •

edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 20, 2021

nrmancuso left a comment •

edited

nrmancuso commented Jan 21, 2021

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2021

nrmancuso commented Jan 21, 2021

romani commented Jan 22, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 22, 2021

romani commented Jan 22, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 22, 2021

romani commented Jan 29, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 31, 2021

himanshurijal commented Feb 1, 2021

romani commented Feb 7, 2021

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2021 •

edited by romani

romani commented Feb 7, 2021

himanshurijal commented Feb 8, 2021

Issue #7643: Update doc for IllegalInstantiation #9181

Issue #7643: Update doc for IllegalInstantiation #9181

Conversation

himanshurijal commented Jan 13, 2021 • edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 13, 2021 • edited

nrmancuso commented Jan 18, 2021 • edited

romani commented Jan 19, 2021 • edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 19, 2021

nrmancuso commented Jan 19, 2021 • edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 20, 2021

nrmancuso left a comment • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nrmancuso commented Jan 21, 2021

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2021

nrmancuso commented Jan 21, 2021

romani commented Jan 22, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 22, 2021

romani commented Jan 22, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 22, 2021

romani commented Jan 29, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 31, 2021

himanshurijal commented Feb 1, 2021

romani commented Feb 7, 2021

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2021 • edited by romani

romani commented Feb 7, 2021

himanshurijal commented Feb 8, 2021

himanshurijal commented Jan 13, 2021 •

edited

himanshurijal commented Jan 13, 2021 •

edited

nrmancuso commented Jan 18, 2021 •

edited

romani commented Jan 19, 2021 •

edited

nrmancuso commented Jan 19, 2021 •

edited

nrmancuso left a comment •

edited

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2021 •

edited by romani