Summary:
The previous diffs recorded it for the case when the unvetted value is
dereferenced or otherwise used wrongly. This case finishes the work,
recording the needed signature for the remaining case (when the
offending third party has a non-nullable param with nullable passed
inside)
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D23706679
fbshipit-source-id: e6f641223
Summary:
If the issue is related to the use of an unvetted third party method
that can not be trusted, we record this fact.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D23705626
fbshipit-source-id: 851328fe5
Summary:
It was inconsistent before (we recorded it only for meta issues).
Now we always record it, which will simplify further diffs.
In the next diffs, we are going to add more fields inside `nullsafe_extra`.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D23705592
fbshipit-source-id: 8bbb0e7c8
Summary:
We already take into account inheritance if the method inherits a known
modelled initializer method (e.g. Activity.onCreate()).
But if the method is explicitly marked as Initializer, we require its
overrides to be also marked.
This diffs fixes the behavior and makes it consistent, now this is
enough to annotate only parent class.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D23135177
fbshipit-source-id: a21ff4a0e
Summary:
Current handling of lambdas is quite rudimentary. Looking at test
results we can see that errors are all over the place: False Positives,
False Negatives and just plain wrong results.
These tests can be grouped in 2 sets:
1. Basic support which implies:
- understanding method signatures,
- providing comprehensible error messages.
2. Extended support with implies:
- understanding scoping of values captures in lambdas (needs proper aliasing analysis).
- understanding parametric nullability in generics (needs "some"
support for Generics in our Java frontend).
With follow-up patches I'll attempt to implement "Basic" support for
Lambdas. "Extended" support will be out of scope unless there's
significant demand.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D23058673
fbshipit-source-id: 621551cca
Summary:
Synthetic/autogenerated methods/fields usually contain `$` in their names.
Reporting nullability violations on such code doesn't make much sense
since the violations are not actionable for users and likely need to be
resolved on another level.
This diff contributes:
1. Several test cases that involve synthetic code of different
complexity.
2. Code that handles some particular types of errors (but not all!).
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D22984578
fbshipit-source-id: d25806209
Summary:
There are two ways to suppress it.
1. Field level suppression annotation (was already tested). This will
apply to all constructors.
2. Constructor level annotation (this is what this test does). Sometimes
there are "fake" constructors that are not intended to be called in
prod, they might leave some fields not initialized.
Note that there are two ways to add a suppression; one has a known
problem that is documented here.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D22864869
fbshipit-source-id: f95aaa26a
Summary:
When expressions use generics or typecasts, CFG contains intermediate `_fun_cast` nodes which break some nullsafe heuristics and lead to false positives.
This affects different types of checks (null-check on assignment expressions, `map.containsKey` checks in assignment expressions, regular typecasts, etc.
See added tests for examples.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D22815631
fbshipit-source-id: 80d444b1c
Summary:
This diff:
1. Adds general capability to model any field as nullable /
non-nullable.
2. Uses it for Boolean.TRUE and Boolean.FALSE
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D22794226
fbshipit-source-id: 95f586592
Summary:
We already had a heuristic to deal with assignment expressions, but it
relied on the very previous CFG node to have a non-empty list of instrs.
In some cases, however, this previous node is a Join_node with no instrs,
so we need to take one more step back to find what we're looking for.
I've also added a bit more logging around this functionality, so it's
easier to debug/tune in future.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D22282930
fbshipit-source-id: 024eec145
Summary: Let's make package name match the directory name to follow Java's file lookup conventions
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D22183964
fbshipit-source-id: b9958b975
Summary:
Nullability of the assignment result is not refined in code snippets
like:
```
while ((a = foo.getA()) != null) {
nonNullableVal = a;
}
```
Let's add a test for this.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D22136218
fbshipit-source-id: 206c368d6
Summary: Later on, this can be changed again or made customizable.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21618730
fbshipit-source-id: fe517c766
Summary:
These 2 methods are automatically supplied for all enums, with
predefined behavior and nullability: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/enum-in-java/
(Note that they are not part of java.lang.Enum class).
This will allow using them in unvetted third part and under strict mode.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21501716
fbshipit-source-id: 104082d15
Summary:
This diff changes way we treat classes w.r.t. to Nullsafe modes when
issuing meta-issues.
Previously, we considered nested class independently of the outer one.
This was leading to a tricky case: when the class is clean but nested
class needs fixing, meta-info told that class can be Nullsafe.
This is counter-intutive and lead to problems when users tried to follow
wrong nullsafe suggestions for this case.
After this diff we:
1. Start calculating meta-issues only on the outermost level. This will simplify
reasoning about nullsafe stats.
2. Aggregate all nested issues counters to corresponding outer-level class.
Among others, CLASS_CAN_BE_NULLSAFE Advice will finally become
actionable in all known cases.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21353607
fbshipit-source-id: a17c6958a
Summary:
We have a common entry point where we skip analysis in nullsafe.
This logic is copied from `Reporting.log_issue_from_summary`.
I believe this should not exist in Reporting: it is not the right place
to decide whether to suppress issues: we should not try to report it in
first place.
Because of that we falsely report "needs improvement" meta-issue while
we don't issue any (they were suppressed but participated in needs
improvement count calculations).
Now this change will make meta-issue to be synced with what the user
actually sees.
Down the line we should have a more reliable fix for that.
So far I reviewed suppressing code and looks like we should not suppress
anything else (unless explicitly SuppressLint-ed, which is fine).
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21328634
fbshipit-source-id: 120ce06d1
Summary:
The directory was created to have several sets of nullsafe tests but
there is only one in the end. Remove the redundant "-default".
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D21300205
fbshipit-source-id: 46ed8b032
Mitya Lyubarskiy
Artem Pianykh
David Pichardie
Jules Villard