Adding notcheckdeadcode option #633
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for starting work on this issue!
At the moment this isn't tested at all, so please do add a new test directory that enables the option.
When I tried it before, there was a problem with the Nullness Checker, so do use that.
Write tests e.g. like the one in the issue and things like an empty try block where an impossible catch block does something bad.
| @@ -150,6 +150,9 @@ | |||
| // org.checkerframework.framework.source.SourceChecker.report | |||
| "warns", | |||
|
|
|||
| // Make checker ignore the expression in dead branch | |||
| "notCheckDeadCode", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about ignoreDeadCode to have more symmetry with other ignoreXXX options?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By convention, for each option we list the main point where that option is used. Please add such a reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By convention, for each option we list the main point where that option is used. Please add such a reference.
Thanks, already addressed the comment in 1d1c348
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about
ignoreDeadCodeto have more symmetry with otherignoreXXXoptions?
addressed this comment in 58f4773
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| */ | ||
| if (checker.hasOption("notCheckDeadCode")) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here, and probably in the BaseTypeVisitor, put the option into a protected variable, so that we don't look up the option multiple times. See how other options are handled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here, and probably in the
BaseTypeVisitor, put the option into a protected variable, so that we don't look up the option multiple times. See how other options are handled.
addressed this comment in 2540cd3
Thanks, I will add test cases later. |
Fixes #627
Do you need more test cases on this option?