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

Fix for CustomDeclarationOrderCheck_issue#190 (setters treating) #193

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 7, 2014

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@alexkravin
Contributor

alexkravin commented Jul 3, 2014

Updated Check to treat more kind of methods as setters.
E.g., now Check treats 'set' method as setter, in cases like:
public void setWorkMode(String workMode) {
this.workMode = WorkMode.valueOf(workMode);
}
public void setUserCache(UserCache userCache) {
super.setUserCache(userCache);
}
public void setY(Integer y) { // setter
this.y = Integer.parseInt(y + "");
}

Currently, if there's assignment with method call and in case if there's calling setter from the super class

@vaReliy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vaReliy

vaReliy Jul 3, 2014

Why so complicated in setY():
'this.y = Integer.parseInt(y + "");',

instead of simple:
'this.y = y;' ?

vaReliy commented Jul 3, 2014

Why so complicated in setY():
'this.y = Integer.parseInt(y + "");',

instead of simple:
'this.y = y;' ?

@isopov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@isopov

isopov Jul 3, 2014

Member

Because this is not the actual code, but the test input for code parser.

Member

isopov commented Jul 3, 2014

Because this is not the actual code, but the test input for code parser.

@vaReliy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vaReliy

vaReliy Jul 3, 2014

Oh, thanks for answer.
But, I did not quite understand: method takes the Integer..
Maybe will come with experience.. :)

vaReliy commented Jul 3, 2014

Oh, thanks for answer.
But, I did not quite understand: method takes the Integer..
Maybe will come with experience.. :)

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Jul 4, 2014

Member

build is failed.
@daniilyar, please merge this PR as it become valid.

Member

romani commented Jul 4, 2014

build is failed.
@daniilyar, please merge this PR as it become valid.

@daniilyar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daniilyar

daniilyar Jul 5, 2014

Member

@alexkravin, please fix: https://travis-ci.org/sevntu-checkstyle/sevntu.checkstyle/builds/29065206
Failure caused by your NestedTernaryCheck updates. NestedTernaryCheck update should go in a separate Pull Request, we already discussed that.

Member

daniilyar commented Jul 5, 2014

@alexkravin, please fix: https://travis-ci.org/sevntu-checkstyle/sevntu.checkstyle/builds/29065206
Failure caused by your NestedTernaryCheck updates. NestedTernaryCheck update should go in a separate Pull Request, we already discussed that.

@alexkravin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexkravin

alexkravin Jul 6, 2014

Contributor

Fixed. Updates with NestedTernaryCheck were removed from this Pull Request

Contributor

alexkravin commented Jul 6, 2014

Fixed. Updates with NestedTernaryCheck were removed from this Pull Request

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls Jul 6, 2014

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) when pulling f69c2a1 on alexkravin:CustomDeclarationOrder_#190 into a1c2d2a on sevntu-checkstyle:master.

coveralls commented Jul 6, 2014

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) when pulling f69c2a1 on alexkravin:CustomDeclarationOrder_#190 into a1c2d2a on sevntu-checkstyle:master.

@daniilyar daniilyar merged commit f69c2a1 into sevntu-checkstyle:master Jul 7, 2014

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci The Travis CI build passed
Details

@alexkravin alexkravin deleted the alexkravin:CustomDeclarationOrder_#190 branch Jul 7, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment