Introduce ExplicitArgumentEnumeration check
#985
Conversation
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
| // XXX: Once we target JDK 14+, drop this method in favour of `Symbol#isPublic()`. | ||
| private static boolean isPublic(Symbol symbol) { | ||
| return symbol.getModifiers().contains(Modifier.PUBLIC); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also present in #972, but a separate utility method doesn't seem worth it. (Or we can just drop JDK 11 support 🙃.)
Stephan202
force-pushed
the
sschroevers/prefer-varargs-alternatives
branch
from
d3877c5
to
a74fd35
Compare
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Stephan202
force-pushed
the
sschroevers/prefer-varargs-alternatives
branch
from
a74fd35
to
9e7ac68
Compare
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Stephan202
force-pushed
the
sschroevers/prefer-varargs-alternatives
branch
from
9e7ac68
to
714713b
Compare
| if (tree.getArguments().size() != 1) { | ||
| return Description.NO_MATCH; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pitest reports that this if-statement can be mutated away. That's correct: it's a performance optimization. While we haven't done so in the past, it may be good to start documenting such cases. Will do for this case.
| private static boolean isUnaryIterableAcceptingMethod(MethodSymbol method, VisitorState state) { | ||
| List<VarSymbol> params = method.params(); | ||
| return !method.isVarArgs() | ||
| && params.size() == 1 | ||
| && ASTHelpers.isSubtype(params.get(0).type, state.getSymtab().iterableType, state); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pitest flags that the params.size() == 1 can be mutated away. This is true thanks to the initial tree.getArguments().size() != 1 check, but it doesn't seem right to drop this condition; it makes the code less clear, IMHO.
|
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Stephan202
force-pushed
the
sschroevers/prefer-varargs-alternatives
branch
from
714713b
to
6ae584f
Compare
|
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
1 similar comment
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Suggested commit message:
I found this on an old branch from early last year. Extended it a bit and now putting it up for review. Perhaps we can find a better name. Likely this code should also be tested against the internal code base before landing. But it's certainly ready for review.