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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Code that is @AnnotatedFor("nullness") is also @AnnotatedFor("initialization") #92

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Code that is @AnnotatedFor("nullness") is also @AnnotatedFor("initialization") #92

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member Author

Note: make the annotatedfor element follow alphabetical order

wmdietl
wmdietl reviewed Oct 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
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.

Adding some more explanation to the PR description would make it easier to reconstruct the point of the PR in the future.

As discussed, alphabetically sorting the checkers in AnnotatedFor would be good. Is the IDE support that could do this? Could we have a simple Error Prone checker that looks for this and fixes it automatically?

@wmdietl wmdietl changed the title Also annotatedfor initialization if it is annotatedfor nullness Code that is @AnnotatedFor nullness is also @AnnotatedFor initialization Oct 4, 2024
@wmdietl wmdietl changed the title Code that is @AnnotatedFor nullness is also @AnnotatedFor initialization Code that is @AnnotatedFor("nullness") is also @AnnotatedFor("initialization") Oct 4, 2024
@Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member Author

Adding some more explanation to the PR description would make it easier to reconstruct the point of the PR in the future.

As discussed, alphabetically sorting the checkers in AnnotatedFor would be good. Is the IDE support that could do this? Could we have a simple Error Prone checker that looks for this and fixes it automatically?

@wmdietl Let me fix the CI failure first. Since this looks like a format issue, will an additional spotless feature to format the elements in annotatedfor be more consistent to handle all format issue?

@Ao-senXiong Ao-senXiong removed their assignment Nov 14, 2024
@Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member Author

@wmdietl I am not sure why I can not assign you in this repo so I pin here. I hope this can go into release and we shall update CF in AWS.

@Ao-senXiong Ao-senXiong marked this pull request as draft November 16, 2024 00:49
@Ao-senXiong
Copy link
Member Author

Don't merge at the moment as annotatedfor('initialization') did not work correctly. See eisop/checker-framework#982

@Ao-senXiong Ao-senXiong marked this pull request as ready for review November 19, 2024 02:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@wmdietl wmdietl Awaiting requested review from wmdietl

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Ao-senXiong @wmdietl