Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NamedArguments: fix false positive with java method call #3290

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 16, 2020

Conversation

t-kameyama
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #3289

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 16, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #3290 (fb5b49d) into master (cea1e9f) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #3290      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     80.05%   80.02%   -0.03%     
- Complexity     2663     2667       +4     
============================================
  Files           443      443              
  Lines          8111     8126      +15     
  Branches       1539     1542       +3     
============================================
+ Hits           6493     6503      +10     
- Misses          795      796       +1     
- Partials        823      827       +4     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...turbosch/detekt/rules/complexity/NamedArguments.kt 85.71% <33.33%> (-14.29%) 9.00 <6.00> (+1.00) ⬇️
...bosch/detekt/rules/exceptions/ReturnFromFinally.kt 82.75% <0.00%> (-2.43%) 10.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
...urbosch/detekt/rules/performance/SpreadOperator.kt 81.25% <0.00%> (+1.25%) 12.00% <0.00%> (+3.00%)
...otlin/io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/api/CodeSmell.kt 60.46% <0.00%> (+1.49%) 11.00% <0.00%> (ø%)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cea1e9f...0e19582. Read the comment docs.

@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member

Are we OK about removing features of detekt without type solving? Or do we want to keep the mixed rules? I prefer no mix.

@cortinico
Copy link
Member

Are we OK about removing features of detekt without type solving? Or do we want to keep the mixed rules? I prefer no mix.

I'm fine with this change. I believe we should push users to use Type Resolution + restrict the rules with mixed behavior (#2994). This rule is going to become a Type Resolution only so it 👍 on my end.

…etekt/rules/complexity/NamedArgumentsSpec.kt
@schalkms schalkms merged commit 2e89bd4 into detekt:master Dec 16, 2020
@schalkms
Copy link
Member

I agree. This shouldn't be a mixed rule.
The goal is to stay away from that, since type and symbol solving should become stable with detekt v2.0.0.

@t-kameyama t-kameyama deleted the issue_3289 branch December 16, 2020 20:32
@arturbosch arturbosch added this to the 1.15.0 milestone Dec 18, 2020
arturbosch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 16, 2021
* NamedArguments: fix false positive with java method call

* Update detekt-rules-complexity/src/test/kotlin/io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/rules/complexity/NamedArgumentsSpec.kt

Co-authored-by: M Schalk <30376729+schalkms@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

NamedArguments with java code false positive
6 participants