Community
Participate
Working Groups
1) Create a new ASTParser using ASTParser.newParser() 2) Set the 'kind' to K_STATEMENTS 3) Set source to the following code snippet " public static void m1() { int a; int b; } public static void m2() { int c; int d; } " 4)Create AST by invoking the createAST method only partial AST is returned. ie. AST for the following code fragment is only returned "{ int c; int d; }" When I looked at the source of ASTParser I found the following problem In the method private ASTNode internalCreateASTForKind() at line 963 shown below <-- ConstructorDeclaration constructorDeclaration = codeSnippetParsingUtil.parseStatements(this.rawSource, this.sourceOffset, this.sourceLength, this.compilerOptions, true, true); --> the constructorDeclaration object is initialized and at the next line the 'compilationResult' field of the 'constructorDeclaration' is accessed. Therefore the assumption is constructorDeclaration object will never be null. However at line 978 there is an 'if else statement' where the body of the if statement executes only if 'constructorDeclaration' is not null and the body of the else statement executes if 'constructorDeclaration' is null. Since 'constructorDeclaration' object can never be null, as per the above assumption, the body of the else statement is never executed. The eclipse version used was Version: 3.2.0 Build id: M20060628-1325
You simply do not use the right kind of ASTParser as your code is not a sequence of statements but a sequence of class body declarations instead. So, changing K_STATEMENTS to K_CLASS_BODY_DECLARATIONS will fix your issue. Here's the snippet I wrote using your example: ASTParser parser = ASTParser.newParser(AST.JLS3); parser.setKind(ASTParser.K_CLASS_BODY_DECLARATIONS); String source = "public static void m1()\n" + "{\n" + " int a;\n" + "int b;\n" + "}\n" + "public static void m2()\n" + "{\n" + " int c;\n" + " int d;\n" + "}\n"; parser.setSource(source.toCharArray()); ASTNode node = parser.createAST(null); System.out.println(node.toString()); And I get following (expected) output: class MISSING { public static void m1(){ int a; int b; } public static void m2(){ int c; int d; } }
(In reply to comment #1) But shouldn't it mark the source as malformed. i.e if 'aN' is the ASTNode returned after parsing then shouldn't 'aN.getFlags() == ASTNode.MALFORMED' return true. It currently does not. Could you please look at the else block on lines 998-1006 of the method internalCreateASTForKind() in org.eclipse.jdt.core.dom.ASTParser.class I think the else block was intended to get executed if there were any parse errors, but it does not as the variable 'constructorDeclaration' is never null. > You simply do not use the right kind of ASTParser as your code is not a > sequence of statements but a sequence of class body declarations instead. So, > changing K_STATEMENTS to K_CLASS_BODY_DECLARATIONS will fix your issue. > Here's the snippet I wrote using your example: > ASTParser parser = ASTParser.newParser(AST.JLS3); > parser.setKind(ASTParser.K_CLASS_BODY_DECLARATIONS); > String source = > "public static void m1()\n" + > "{\n" + > " int a;\n" + > "int b;\n" + > "}\n" + > "public static void m2()\n" + > "{\n" + > " int c;\n" + > " int d;\n" + > "}\n"; > parser.setSource(source.toCharArray()); > ASTNode node = parser.createAST(null); > System.out.println(node.toString()); > And I get following (expected) output: > class MISSING { > public static void m1(){ > int a; > int b; > } > public static void m2(){ > int c; > int d; > } > }
Several problems here: 1) The statement recovery should only be triggered if the method: ASTParser.setStatementRecovey(boolean) is called with true. Otherwise the list of statements of the returned block should be empty. 2) The statements should indeed be flagged as MALFORMED and/or RECOVERED.
I would expect the statements to be flagged as RECOVERED and not as MALFORMED. The are well formed, but recovered.
(In reply to comment #3) > 1) The statement recovery should only be triggered if the method: > ASTParser.setStatementRecovey(boolean) is called with true. > Otherwise the list of statements of the returned block should be empty. Done. > 2) The statements should indeed be flagged as MALFORMED and/or RECOVERED. I am not so sure about that. First the two statements are well formed and not recovered. We might need to flag the block as recovered and you can always get the error messages from the root compilation unit. David, any idea what would be the best way to give a feedback to the user about the fact that the original source code was not just statements.
Released for 3.3M4. David, if you have a better idea, reopen it.
Your fix is not complete, there is still a bug in recovery. Once the recovery will be fixed, there will be a better way to flag recovered nodes.
Created attachment 54001 [details] Fix for recovery
Fix released and test updated
Verified for 3.3 M4 using build I20061212-0010.
