Cleanup of warnings / possible not checked nullpointers #1610
Conversation
|
Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have you on file. In order for us to review and merge your code, please sign the CLA at https://www.nativescript.org/cla. |
|
@cla-bot check |
|
The cla-bot has been summoned, and re-checked this pull request! |
| if (!isKotlinClass) { | ||
| return new JavaClassDescriptor(javaClass); | ||
| } | ||
| return new JavaClassDescriptor(javaClass); |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The if statement seems unnecessary as we return some lines above in the case of Kotlin originating bytecode and the only case we will reach this point is when we're dealing with Java originating bytecode
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The IDE complained that the if statement is always false.
Which is correct, its never set to true and then reached.
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| @@ -61,7 +62,7 @@ private static void writeInt(int value, StreamWriter out) throws Exception { | |||
| private static void writeMethodInfo(MethodInfo mi, | |||
| HashMap<String, Integer> uniqueStrings, StreamWriter outValueStream) | |||
| throws Exception { | |||
| int pos = uniqueStrings.get(mi.name).intValue(); | |||
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be autounboxed by the JVM, and this is also a build time step. I believe this change is ok.
| if (!isKotlinClass) { | ||
| return new JavaClassDescriptor(javaClass); | ||
| } | ||
| return new JavaClassDescriptor(javaClass); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The if statement seems unnecessary as we return some lines above in the case of Kotlin originating bytecode and the only case we will reach this point is when we're dealing with Java originating bytecode
| @@ -61,7 +62,7 @@ private static void writeInt(int value, StreamWriter out) throws Exception { | |||
| private static void writeMethodInfo(MethodInfo mi, | |||
| HashMap<String, Integer> uniqueStrings, StreamWriter outValueStream) | |||
| throws Exception { | |||
| int pos = uniqueStrings.get(mi.name).intValue(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be autounboxed by the JVM, and this is also a build time step. I believe this change is ok.
saschaarthur
force-pushed
the
fix/warning_cleanup
branch
from
ff0c7ec to
c2c7932
Compare
|
readded .intValue() unboxing, to be very clear that we want to have here int not Integer |
|
@saschaarthur there is no difference in this case. If the |
* chore:Update CHANGELOG for v6.5.0 * Make buildMetadata aware of whitelist/blacklist files (#1590) * - warning cleanups (#1610) * Bump to 6.5.1 * Update CHANGELOG.md for 6.5.1 * Hardcode first emulator * Use wait-for-device Co-authored-by: Martin Bektchiev <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: saschaarthur <[email protected]>
Description
Exception handling / code cleanup
Does your commit message include the wording below to reference a specific issue in this repo?
There was plenty of warnings by my IDE (IntelliJ).
Most of the stuff was because of failing null pointer checks and unreachable/unused code / as well not needed function calls.
Logic is 100% the same.
Does your pull request have unit tests?
Everything fixed here should be covered by already existing unit tests