Fields should be marked transient only if class is Serializable

[krzyk]

Currently we have a PMD rule BeanMembersShouldSerialize with rationale:

If a class is a bean, or is referenced by a bean directly or indirectly it needs to be serializable. Member variables need to be marked as transient, static, or have accessor methods in the class. Marking variables as transient is the safest and easiest modification. Accessor methods should follow the Java naming conventions, i.e. for a variable named foo, getFoo() and setFoo() accessor methods should be provided.

Most of the time we don't follow the rules for Java Beans (see getters/setters) so I think that the rule requiring fields to be transient should be loose up to only Serializable classes - and there is already such rule enabled in Findbugs (SE_BAD_FIELD):

This Serializable class defines a non-primitive instance field which is neither transient, Serializable, or java.lang.Object, and does not appear to implement the Externalizable interface or the readObject() and writeObject() methods. Objects of this class will not be deserialized correctly if a non-Serializable object is stored in this field.

We should remove rule BeanMembersShouldSerialize and create a test that ensures we can create classes without transient fields.

[krzyk]

@yegor256 What do you think about the above?

[yegor256]

@krzyk well... what's wrong with transient? it is an extra protection against accidental serialization, as far as I understand.

[krzyk]

@yegor256 I haven't thought of it as a protection, more like wasted keystrokes :)
If class is not Serializable then how could it be serialized by accident? One would have to do it on purpose (writeObject) in class that uses it.
And lomboks @EqualsAndHashCode requires naming each transient field for the generated methods (and this annotation is easily forgotten when refactoring the class).

[yegor256]

@krzyk OK, I'm convinced, let's remove this check

[krzyk]

@davvd valid bug

[davvd]

@davvd valid bug

@krzyk I just added bug tag here

[krzyk]

@davvd this is urgent

[davvd]

@davvd this is urgent

@krzyk OK, I put "urgent" label here

[davvd]

@vkuchyn please pick this up, and keep in mind these instructions. Any technical questions - ask right here; The budget here is 30 mins, which is exactly how much time will be paid for, when the task is completed

[davvd]

@krzyk many thanks, 30 mins added to your acc for reporting this bug, pmt ID 77111221

[krzyk]

@vkuchyn it is a good practice to add reference to the PR, even before it was merged

[davvd]

@vkuchyn I'm not sure who actually completed this task, since there were no messages from you above (correct me if I'm wrong)

[krzyk]

@vkuchyn you have to always inform David about PR in the issue you are solving, and after it was merged ask issue creator to close IT (unless creator notices it earlier, like in this case). After you add the reference, please ask davdd for payment.

[vkuchyn]

@davvd Issue was fixed, see #698. Please, proceed payments

[davvd]

@davvd Issue was fixed, see #698. Please, proceed payments

@vkuchyn thank you!

[vkuchyn]

@davvd issue was fixed 7 days ago, but still no payments. Please, recheck status of it.

[vkuchyn]

@davvd More than 10 days passed and still no payment. Please - fix it.
@krzyk 10 days passed - no payment, no reaction on my comment above. What is the best way to resolve this situation according your working policy? Thanks.

[krzyk]

@vkuchyn you can ask @yegor256 for help here

[vkuchyn]

@krzyk Thanks
@yegor256 please, help to resolve the situation - read comments above.

[yegor256]

@davvd pls add extra 30 mins to @vkuchyn

[davvd]

@davvd issue was fixed 7 days ago, but still no payments. Please, recheck status of it.

@vkuchyn @yegor256 please help us here

[davvd]

@davvd pls add extra 30 mins to @vkuchyn

@yegor256 I've sent 30 mins extra to @vkuchyn in transaction ID "78701880"

[vkuchyn]

@davvd Thank you for payment. What about raiting? This task tool 3 days according to github history. But it is not mentioned in my netbout rating. Please check it and fix.

[krzyk]

@davvd this is not urgent

[davvd]

@davvd this is not urgent

@krzyk right, I removed "urgent" tag

[vkuchyn]

@yegor256 again need your help. Please, see comment above

[yegor256]

@vkuchyn see http://at.teamed.io/policy.html#15

[vkuchyn]

@yegor256 please, see http://at.teamed.io/policy.html#14 I didn't received any points, but got payment - what I am talking about

[yegor256]

@vkuchyn you still don't have rating points in your account in Netbout?

[vkuchyn]

@yegor256 still don't have this ticket in my rating. You can take a look by the reference http://www.netbout.com/b/36353?open=rating if you have access

[yegor256]

@vkuchyn that's because the payment was done not in a normal mode. won't happen in the future, I hope. we have to move on here, can't do anything with it.