Summary:
In the previous diffs, nullsafe behavior was changed to the following:
nested class mode is inherited from the outer class mode.
Though it is possible to e.g. make nested class Nullsafe and outer not,
or make nested class STRICT and outer just LOCAL, this is an edge case
and we don't want to recommend annotating nested classes by default. The
right way is to make outer class Nullsafe instead.
In this decision, we take into account user experience and codebase
readability.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D21255806
fbshipit-source-id: 0200cb555
Summary:
With this change, set of possibilities will be more actionable. Most
importantly, this will also educate users and make them realize how
Nullsafe trust works.
NOTE: yes, parenthesis are bit clumsy, but it was the easiest way to
make this change and let the phrase remain grammatically correct.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21231468
fbshipit-source-id: 4b5349fb5
Summary:
In the previous diff we changed the semantics of nested classes w.r.t.
to Nullsafe.
Let's make it clear if users will attempt to misuse it.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21230717
fbshipit-source-id: 0ecc0dd06
Summary:
From the user perspective, the current behavior is confusing.
The users intutitively expect the inner class to inherit Nullsafe mode
from the outer one.
Having a class that is Nullsafe but the inner is not is hence dangerous
and misleading.
For the sake of completeness and to support gradual strictification, we
allow the nested class to improse additional strictness. Particularly,
the inner class can be Nullsafe but the outer can be not.
A follow up to this diff will include warnings telling about redundant and wrong usages of nested annotations.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21228055
fbshipit-source-id: 75755ad1d
Summary:
1. Package will make the error too verbose.
2. We don't even need to say it is "class" because we say it in the error
description ("Class has 0 issues and can be marked Nullsafe").
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21131998
fbshipit-source-id: 6ccca7615
Summary:
There are two types of anonymous classes (not user defined classes):
- classic anonymous classes (defined as $<int> suffixes)
- lambda classes (corresponding to lambda expressions). Experimentally,
they all have form `$Lambda$_<int>_<int>`, but the code just uses
`$Lambda$` as a heuristic so it is potentially more robust.
# Problem this diff solves
When generate meta-issues for nullsafe, we are interested only in
user-defined classes, so we merge all nested anonymous stuff to
corresponding user-defined classes and hence aggregate the issues.
Without this diff, for each lambda in the code, we would report this as
a separate meta-issue, which would both screw up stats and be confusing
for the user (when we start reporting mode promo suggestions!).
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21042928
fbshipit-source-id: a7be266af
Summary:
See the code comment re: why don't we also recommend "strict" at this
stage. We can always change it later when we think users are happy with
strict.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21039553
fbshipit-source-id: 758ccf32c
Summary:
This diff is a step forward to the state when the list of type violations is
independent of the mode (and we use mode solely to decide re: whether to
report or not).
This fixes a case when we incorrectly defined possible promo mode (see
the test payload)
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20948897
fbshipit-source-id: 616b96f96
Summary:
See the comments in the code why it makes logical sense.
This diff is a step forward the state when list of type violations is
independent of the mode (and we use mode solely to decide re: whether to
report or not).
This fixes majority of cases in ModePromotions.java
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20948656
fbshipit-source-id: 82c0d530b
Summary:
Currently we exlude only if the method is based on deprecated config
packages.
Lets use the proper method, which covers both cases (config +
user-defined third party repo).
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20946506
fbshipit-source-id: c3332667f
Summary:
Previously, we learned to detect if Default mode class can be made
Nullsafe(LOCAL).
Lets generalize it and calculate the precise mode.
NOTE 1: We don't distinct shades of "Trust some". We also don't
recommend trust some and recommend "Trust all" instead.
NOTE 2: As you can see from the test payload (see ModePromotions.java),
the precise calculation is not working as expected. This is due to a bug
in nullsafe implementation/design. See follow up diffs that will fix
this test.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20941345
fbshipit-source-id: 2255359ba
Summary:
This information can be useful for tooling responsible for further
processing (e.g. metric calculation and logging)
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20914583
fbshipit-source-id: 61804d88f
Summary:
Currenlty the cost issue is printed at the first node of a function, which is usually the first
statment of the function. This may give a wrong impression that the cost of the statement is
changed.
This diff re-locate where to print issues with heuristics. Going backward from the first node
lines, it looks up a line satisfying,
1. A line should start with <fname> or should include " <fname>".
2. The <fname> found in 1 should be followed by a space, '<', '(', or end of line.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20766876
fbshipit-source-id: b4fee3180
Summary: The current message is recommending to change `View.findViewById()` to `View.requireViewById()`, but the latter method is not supported in all API, so might lead to a crash in runtime.
Differential Revision: D20619361
fbshipit-source-id: 542746c79
Summary:
Although try-with-resource is supported by nullsafe this code pattern
throws it off and make nullsafe report on a virtual **b**yte-**c**ode
variable.
Check out debug output from `TryWithResource` (or attached
visualisation of CFG):
0. node14: $bcvar2=null (on entry to try-with-resource).
1. node16: n$14=$bcvar2, but **also** PRUNE(!(n$14 == null), true). Then we go to
2. node18: do something here and in case of exception go to
3. node25->node23->node19->node20: and here we do
$bcvar2->addSuppressed(...).
Because on step 1 we refined nullability of n$14, but didn't refine
nullability of $bcvar20, on step 3 we are sure that $bcvar is null and
therefore issue an error.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D20558343
fbshipit-source-id: 520505039
Summary:
This is likely not the final refinement, rather one step forward.
We classify all classes by 3 categories:
- Nullsafe and 0 issues
- can add Nullsafe and will be 0 issues
- the rest (class needs improvement)
Each class will fall into exactly one category.
Error messaging is WIP, they are not intended to be surfaced to the user
just yet.
Note how this diff uses the result of the previous refactoring.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20512999
fbshipit-source-id: 7f462d29d
Summary:
# Problem
Consider
```
some_method(Object a) { a.deref(); }
```
What is nullability of `a` when we dereference it?
Logically, things like "LocallyCheckedNonnull" etc are not applicable
here.
This would be applicable if we called some_method() outside! But not
inside. Inside the function, it can freely treat params as non-null, as
long they are declared as non-nullable.
The best we can capture it is via StrictNonnull nullability.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20536586
fbshipit-source-id: 5c2ba7f0d
Summary:
This diff continues work in D20491716.
This time for Inheritance Rule.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20492889
fbshipit-source-id: c4dfd95c3
Summary:
This diff continues work in D20491716.
This time for Dereference Rule.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20492296
fbshipit-source-id: ff7f824f9
Summary:
# Problem
In current design, Rules (assignment rule, dereference rule, inheritance
rule) decide, depending on the mode, wether the issue is legit or not.
If the issue is not actionable for the given mode, it won't be created
and registered.
For meta-issues, we want to be able to do smart things like:
- Identify if we can raise strictness of the mode without
introducing new issues
- Classify classes on "clean" vs "broken", taking into account issues
that are currently invisible.
# Solution
In the new design:
1. Rules are issuing violations independently of mode. This makes sense
semantically. Mode is "level of trust we have for suspicious things",
but the thing does not cease to be suspicious in any mode.
2. Each Rule decides if it is reportable or not in a given mode.
3. `nullsafe_mode` is passed to the function `register_error`, that 1)
adds error so it can be recorded in summary for file-level analysis
phase 2) reports some of them to the user.
# This diff
This diff converts only AssignmentRule, follow up will include
conversion of other rules, so no issue encapsutes the mode.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20491716
fbshipit-source-id: af17dd66d
Summary:
This diff is doing three things:
1. Finishes work paved in D20115024, and applies it to nullsafe. In that diff, we hardened API for
file level analysis. Here we use this API in nullsafe, so now we can
analyze things on file-level, not only in proc-level like it was before!
2. Introduces a class-level analysis. For Nullsafe purposes, file is not
an interesting granularity, but we want to analyze a lot of things on
file level. Interesting part here is anonymous classes and how we link
them to their corresponding user-defined classes.
3. Introduces a first (yet to be improved) implementation of class-level
analysis. Namely it is "meta-issues" that tell what is going with class
on high level. For now these are two primitive issues, and we will
refine them in follow up diffs. They are disabled by default.
Follow ups include:
1. Refining semantics of meta-issues.
2. Adding other issues that we could not analyze before or analyzed not
user friendly. Most importantly, we will use it to improve reporting for
FIELD NOT INITIALIZED, which is not very user friendly exactly because
of lack of class-level aggregation.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20417841
fbshipit-source-id: 59ba7d2e3
Summary:
Some (all?) of this is already tested in other tests, but this feature
is important enough (and the implementation is scattered accross the
whole code), so I found it useful to have a small test that ensures the
very basic things are working as expected.
See `NestedFieldAccess.java` that tests far more advances things, but
here we focus only very basic things: conditions, local variable
assignments, and explicit assignments.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D20339056
fbshipit-source-id: a6cfd0043
Summary:
1. It is convenient to stick with the policy "ERROR if and only if it is
enforced". Among other, it makes CI integration much easier to implement
(enforcemend, UI and messaging is decided based on severity).
2. Since Nullsafe annotation is an idiomatic way to indicate classes
with enforced nullability checking, we want it to be the only way to
enforce issues.
3. This means we decrease the priority of GraphQL violation issues.
(In practice they were not enforced so we have plenty of violations in
codebase to reflect reality). The proper way dealing with GraphQL will
be detecting such issues as a special issue type and prioritizing fixing
and Nullsafe-ifying corresponding classes.
4. Among other, we downgrade severity of field overannotated to advice
to keep it consistent with condition redundant.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20141420
fbshipit-source-id: e2f12835a
Summary:
For Mode.Local this is kind of obvious decision.
But this diff does the same for strict mode as well.
See comment in [ExplicitNonnullThirdParty] for the detailed explanation.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20140056
fbshipit-source-id: 13c66df81
Summary:
In the previos diff we restructured error rendering utils for
TypeOrigin.MethodCall.
In this diff we do the same with TypeOrigin field: lets make the code
consistent.
We also clearly distinct third party from all other possible cases in
this branch.
This changes messaging and reported errors for strict modes (see test cases), and I believe this is a net improvement.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20139741
fbshipit-source-id: 84f502553
Summary:
Now when typechecking a class `A` marked with `Nullsafe(LOCAL)`,
classes from trusted list are properly recognized and nullability of
method params and return value are refined to `LocallyCheckedNonnull`
in a context of class `A`.
NOTE: refininng nullability when **accessing fields** on trusted classes
is **not implemented yet**, because the whole business of handling fields
in nullsafe is somewhat convoluted. This should not be a huge issue
though, since in Java fields are commonly accessed via getters any
way.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D20056158
fbshipit-source-id: 496433d90
Summary:
This will help making error reporting more actionable.
Often methods that are nullable in general (like View.findViewById) are used as not-nullable due to app-invariants. In such cases suggesting a non-nullable alternative that does an assertion under the hood makes the error report more actionable and provides necessary guidance with respect to coding best practices
Follow up will include adding more methods to models.
If this goes well, we might support it in user-defined area (nullability
repository)
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20001416
fbshipit-source-id: 46f03467c
Summary:
Introduction of `ThirdPartyNonnull` nullability broke nullability
refinement heuristic for enums. This diff fixes it and also adds tests
so that we hopefully avoid such issues in future.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D19975810
fbshipit-source-id: f9245f305
Summary:
We need to be able to differentiate `UncheckedNonnull`s in internal vs
third-party code. Previously, those were under one `UncheckedNonnull`
nullability which led to hacks for optmistic third-party parameter
checks in `eradicateChecks.ml` and lack of third-party enforcement in
`Nullsafe(LOCAL, trust=all)` mode (i.e. we want to trust internal
unchecked code, but don't want to trust unvetted third-party).
Now such values are properly modelled and can be accounted for
regularly within rules.
Also, various whitelists are refactored using
`Nullability.is_considered_nonnull ~nullsafe_mode nullability`.
`ErrorRenderingUtils` became a tad more convoluted, but oh well, one
step at a time.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D19977086
fbshipit-source-id: 8337a47b9
Summary:
Add support for nullsafe mode with `trust=all` and `trust=none` a case
with a specific trust list is not supported yet and needs to be
implemented separately.
Tests introduce one unexpected
`ERADICATE_INCONSISTENT_SUBCLASS_PARAMETER_ANNOTATION` issue which
complains about `this` having incorrect nullability; it is a bug and
needs to be fixed separately.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D19662708
fbshipit-source-id: 3bc1e3952
Summary: In all other cases we have period at the end, which is inconsistent.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20001065
fbshipit-source-id: 85ec6d751
Summary:
We already warn about lack of nullable annotations in `equals()`, and even have a specialized error message for that.
But lack of an annotation is not as severe as direct dereference: the
latter is a plain bug which is also a time bomb: it will lead to an NPE not immediately.
This is widespread enough to be reported separately.
Reviewed By: dulmarod
Differential Revision: D19719598
fbshipit-source-id: a535d43ea
Summary:
If we managed to whitelist a function as TrueOnNull, we should teach
nullsafe the nullability of its arguments, otherwise it will ask not to
pass null here.
This fixes a silly FP warning, see the test.
Reviewed By: dulmarod
Differential Revision: D19770341
fbshipit-source-id: 0f861fae1
Summary:
Yay, the previous refactoring finally makes it possible to do some actual
changes to the code in `TypeCheck.ml`!
Changes in this diff:
1. Fixes the bug: TrueOnNull and FalseOnNull were working only for
static methods. Surpsingly nobody noticed that. It is because the first
argument for non-static method was `this`.
2. Behavior change: TrueOnNull/FalseOnNull were not working correctly
where there are several argumens. See the task attached for the example
of the legit usecase. Now the behavior is the following: if there are
several Nullable arguments infer nullability for all of them.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D19770219
fbshipit-source-id: 7dffe42cd
Summary:
This refactoring unblocks the changes in follow up diffs (plus fixes a
bug).
So what was happening?
Each comparison with null leads to CFG being splitted into two branches, one branch
is PRUNE(a == null) and another is PRUNE(a != null).
PRUNE(a != null) is where most of logic happens, it is the place where
we infer non-null nullability for a, and this is a natural place to
leave a check for redundancy.
Before this diff we effectively checked the same thing twice, and used
`true_branch` (only one of 2 instruction will have it set to true) as a symmetry breaker.
This diff removes the `true_branch` checks, but leaves only one call out
of two, hence breaking symmetry in a different way.
## Bug fix
The code around the removed check was (crazily) doing two things at
once: it processed results of (returning booleans!)
TrueOnNull-annotated functions AND
results of (returning Objects!) other functions, using the fact that all
of them are encoded as zero literals (sic!).
Not surprisingly that lead to a bug where we accidentally call the check
for non intended places (arguments of trueOnNull functions), which lead
to really weird FP.
This diff fixes it.
Reviewed By: dulmarod
Differential Revision: D19744604
fbshipit-source-id: fe4e65a8f
Summary:
This test tests PropagatesNullable and TrueOnNull/FalseOnNull
annotations.
Both tests suites grew big so it is hard to observe them at glance and
make changes.
I could not figure out better name for TrueFalseOnNull.java, it is sort
of silly but I optimized for searchability, "FalseOnNull" will be
directly searched and "TrueOnNull" will be searched in IDEs that are
smart enough.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D19724512
fbshipit-source-id: 703961342
Summary:
- Add `Nullsafe` annotation as a general mechanism to specify
type-checking behaviour for nullsafe.
- Document annotation params and provide usage examples with
explanations.
- Add tests to demonstrate the behaviour with different type-checking
modes.
No implementation is added. This diff serves as an RFC to hash out the
details before I dive into code.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D19578329
fbshipit-source-id: b1a9f6162
Summary:
In practice, condition redundant is extremely noisy and low-signal
warning (hence it is turned off by default).
This diff does minor tweaks, without the intention to change anything
substantially:
1/ Change severity to advice
2/ Change "is" to "might be"
3/ Describe the reason in case the origin comes from a method.
The short term motivation is to use 3/ for specific use-case: running nullsafe on codebase and
identify most suspicious functions (that are not annotated by often
compared with null).
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D19553571
fbshipit-source-id: 2b43ea0af
Summary: We were lacking this kind of test where one interface refines the nullability of the other.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D19514245
fbshipit-source-id: fa3e781f3
Summary:
This is a common enough case to make error message specific.
Also let's ensure it's modelled.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D19431899
fbshipit-source-id: f34459cb3
Summary:
The previous diff changes the message for params case, this one handles
return.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D19430706
fbshipit-source-id: f897f0e56
Summary:
As suggested by Ilya, the current message can be improved in a way that
it can contain more clear action. I also added artempyanykh's explanation at the
end of message to provide an additional justification from common sense
perspective.
But most importantly, the previous message was missing a space which is
eye bleeding, how come haven't I noticed this before, I can't stand it
OMG.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D19430271
fbshipit-source-id: dd31f7adb
Summary: This diff implements this for Field Not Initialized check
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D19393989
fbshipit-source-id: cf60e8d53
Mitya Lyubarskiy
Daiva Naudziuniene
Sungkeun Cho
Artem Pianykh