Summary:
1. Split into 3 subclasses for 3 major set of features we test
2. Document a known FP
3. More clear names
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17285902
fbshipit-source-id: 66e3b5668
Summary:
Let's consolidate "positive" and "negative" cased together by adding an example
of not annotated class as a source of "negative" cases.
Also join the case with modelled methods to the same class.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17284101
fbshipit-source-id: e15e60691
Summary:
There are currently plenty of ways to suppress the warning, including Inject, Initializer, and SuppressFieldNotInitialized annotations.
This one (annotating field with Nonnull) is counter-intuitive and does not align with gradual nullsafe
semantics we are working on.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D17281702
fbshipit-source-id: 132e1b687
Summary: let's always have positive and negative case for each feature we test
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D17206785
fbshipit-source-id: 5791ace48
Summary:
1. Let's move it to the file dedicated to this particular warning.
2. Make it more general (Activity was just a particular case) and describe in comments what it really does.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D17205919
fbshipit-source-id: 82bf5e9bd
Summary:
1. Remove boilerplate with builder that uses builder initializer; it
demostates a usecase but it is not really relevant for the test so it
distracts attention.
Instead, describe the usecase in the comment
2. Add good and bad cases so it is obvious what exactly do we test.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D17204969
fbshipit-source-id: 005ea078b
Summary:
Let's combine with the one that tests a very similar thing for known
cleanup methods
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D17204206
fbshipit-source-id: dbdbde903
Summary:
1. Remove manipulations with "shadowed" fields and abstract class, I don't believe they produced high quality signal (and no related warnings in the test output).
2. For each failure case provide corresponding success case and the
reverse
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D17203240
fbshipit-source-id: c809857ed
Summary:
1. Let's make the intention of the test more visible, also let's provide an example
when the error does occur.
2. `onDestroy` silence "field not nullable" warnigs not only for `View`, but for any objects, so let's use `String` (as an example of a trivial object) instead.
Original diff that introduced the test: D10024458
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D17202839
fbshipit-source-id: 037d937e4
Summary:
See motivation below.
This diff is dealing with FieldNotNullable:
- move not relevant subclasses into dedicated classes and files
- modify the tests so they comply with the standards below
--Motivation--
Gradual mode we are going to introduce is an invasive change in how Infer
treats nullability semantics.
In order to make the change in a controllable way, we need the tests to comply with the
following standards and conventions.
1. For each code peace where we expect a bug to happen, the there should be
corresponding (minimally different from above) peace of code where we expect a bug to NOT happen. (This is to ensure bug is happening for exact reason we think it is happening).
2. Conversely: for each peace of code where we expect a bug to be NOT
present, there shuold be a peace of code where the bug IS happening.
(Otherwise there can be too many reasons for a bug NOT to happen).
3. Convention: end corresponding methods IsOK and IsBUG correspondingly.
4. Keep code examples as small as possible.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D17183222
fbshipit-source-id: 83d03e67f
Summary:
In next diff, we are going to introduce a new mode of nullsafe
(gradual). For testing, we are going to employ the strategy used by jvillard
for Pulse.
In this diff we split tests into two subfolders, one for the default and one for the gradual
mode.
We are planning to make the gradual mode default eventually. For that, most
new features will make sense for gradual mode, and we will mostly evolve
tests for that mode.
As for 'default' mode, we need to preserve tests mostly to ensure we don't introduce
regressions.
Occasionally, we might make changes that make sense for both modes, in
this (expected relatively rare) cases we will make changes to both set
of tests.
An alternative strategy would be to have two sets of issues.exp files,
one for gradual and one for default mode. This has an advantage of each
java file to be always tested twice, but disadvantage is that it will be
harder to write meaningful test code so that it makes sense for both
modes simultaneously.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D17156724
fbshipit-source-id: a92a9208f
Mitya Lyubarskiy