Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: 20100218-1602 Would be nice for this check to be able to ignore default constructors which are generally empty blocks which really require no comment. Reproducible: Always
I'll investigate this.
Olivier, this seems like a reasonable request and I would like to fix this, let me know if I am overlooking something here.
Created attachment 174258 [details] Possible patch
Jay, please review, TIA.
Patch looks good.
This would always ignore this warning for constructors. I would prefer a flag to do this so that it can be enabled for the users who always want it to be reported. So +1 for the idea with an option to configure it. Why do you also ignore the warning for method with no parameters ?
(In reply to comment #6) > This would always ignore this warning for constructors. > I would prefer a flag to do this so that it can be enabled for the users who > always want it to be reported. > So +1 for the idea with an option to configure it. Markus, will JDT/UI be willing & interested in supporting this ? > Why do you also ignore the warning for method with no parameters ? Not sure if you meant "why do you ... " or "why don't you ..." The patch does not alter the behavior w.r.t to empty methods with no parameters - i.e we will continue to flag them as having undocumented empty block. In fact the new regression test org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler.regression.NonFatalErrorTest.test006() tests for this. We are making this special allowance only for programmer supplied no-arg empty constructors because the language forces you to supply one in some cases (viz if you have some other constructor in your class but wish to allow a subclass to have a no-arg constructor.) We don't want to extend the allowance to other methods where the programmer is not similarly constrained to supply a (dummy/stub) method.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > This would always ignore this warning for constructors. > > I would prefer a flag to do this so that it can be enabled for the users who > > always want it to be reported. > > So +1 for the idea with an option to configure it. > > Markus, will JDT/UI be willing & interested in supporting this ? Markus, have you had a chance to look into this ? TIA.
I agree with Srikanth. This is so minor that I don't want to add yet another preference. We could rename the option to "Unforced undocumented empty block", but I think you should just release the patch. BTW: I find (!(this.isConstructor() && this.arguments == null)) easier to understand than (!this.isConstructor() || this.arguments != null)
(In reply to comment #9) > I agree with Srikanth. This is so minor that I don't want to add yet another > preference. We could rename the option to "Unforced undocumented empty block", > but I think you should just release the patch. > OK, thanks for weighing in Markus, I'll release it next week after M1 is out of the door.
Released in HEAD for 3.7 M2.
Verified for 3.7M2 using build I20100909-1700.
