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

Adding notcheckdeadcode option #633

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member

Fixes #627

Do you need more test cases on this option?

Copy link
Member

@wmdietl wmdietl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for starting work on this issue!
At the moment this isn't tested at all, so please do add a new test directory that enables the option.
When I tried it before, there was a problem with the Nullness Checker, so do use that.
Write tests e.g. like the one in the issue and things like an empty try block where an impossible catch block does something bad.

@@ -150,6 +150,9 @@
// org.checkerframework.framework.source.SourceChecker.report
"warns",

// Make checker ignore the expression in dead branch
"notCheckDeadCode",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about ignoreDeadCode to have more symmetry with other ignoreXXX options?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By convention, for each option we list the main point where that option is used. Please add such a reference.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By convention, for each option we list the main point where that option is used. Please add such a reference.

Thanks, already addressed the comment in 1d1c348

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about ignoreDeadCode to have more symmetry with other ignoreXXX options?

addressed this comment in 58f4773

}
});
*/
if (checker.hasOption("notCheckDeadCode")) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here, and probably in the BaseTypeVisitor, put the option into a protected variable, so that we don't look up the option multiple times. See how other options are handled.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here, and probably in the BaseTypeVisitor, put the option into a protected variable, so that we don't look up the option multiple times. See how other options are handled.

addressed this comment in 2540cd3

@Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for starting work on this issue! At the moment this isn't tested at all, so please do add a new test directory that enables the option. When I tried it before, there was a problem with the Nullness Checker, so do use that. Write tests e.g. like the one in the issue and things like an empty try block where an impossible catch block does something bad.

Thanks, I will add test cases later.

Copy link
Member

@wmdietl wmdietl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Ao-senXiong Were there more tests you wanted to add? Can you wrap up this PR?

@@ -150,6 +150,10 @@
// org.checkerframework.framework.source.SourceChecker.report
"warns",

// Make checker ignore the expression in dead branch
// org.checkerframework.framework.common.basetype.BaseTypeVisitor.shouldSkipUses
"ignoreCheckDeadCode",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As noted in #633 (comment) ignoreDeadCode would seem simpler.

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
// @skip-test until the bug is fixed
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do these tests not work?

// :: error: (dereference.of.nullable)
obj.toString();
for (int i = 0; i < 0; i++) {
obj.toString();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add a comment to each dead branch why they are dead.

@@ -3,6 +3,9 @@ Version 3.40.0-eisop3 (November ??, 2023)

**User-visible changes:**

Add a new command-line argument `-AignoreCheckDeadCode` disables the checker for code in dead expression.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When you update the branch, make sure to move this to the next upcoming release.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And try to make this sentence easier to read.

// return true;
// }
if (ignoreCheckDeadCode) {
System.out.printf("shouldSkipUses: %s: %s%n", exprTree.getClass(), exprTree);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is debugging output and should remain a comment.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, the debugging output shouldn't be guarded by the new condition.
You can combine the two 'if's into one check.

// if (atypeFactory.isUnreachable(tree)) {
// return super.visitMemberSelect(tree, p);
// }
if (ignoreCheckDeadCode) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why make these two separate 'if's?


@Parameterized.Parameters
public static String[] getTestDirs() {
return new String[] {"nullness-deadbranch"};
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about nullness-ignoredeadcode to name the directory after the option?

@@ -3,6 +3,9 @@ Version 3.40.0-eisop3 (November ??, 2023)

**User-visible changes:**

Add a new command-line argument `-AignoreCheckDeadCode` disables the checker for code in dead expression.
This option is not enabled by default.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please also add documentation in the manual, where we have a short paragraph for each option.

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.

Add an option to not check dead code
2 participants