Actually support records #1414
Actually support records #1414
Conversation
Generate changelog in
|
| isSubtype(getType(tree), Suppliers.typeFromString(t).get(state), state))) { | ||
|
|
||
| Pattern isRecord = Pattern.compile("record\\s+" + tree.getSimpleName() + "\\("); | ||
| if (isRecord.matcher(state.getSourceForNode(tree)).find()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could become expensive, I wonder if we can get away with state.getSourceForNode(tree).startsWith("record ")?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately records can have a visibility modifier so that check doesn't quite work
| .addSourceLines( | ||
| "Test.java", | ||
| "class Test {", | ||
| "@SuppressWarnings(\"StrictUnusedVariable\")", |
|
So are we saying that new error-prone doesn't actually use a modern java compiler that would allow us to use first-class methods to determine if an AST is actually a record?? It does seem very sad to have to regex things :( |
|
Yes its pretty unfortunate to have to do a regex. We could leave things as is and say that we don't have 100% support for |
|
I'm going to close this out and say that we only partially support records at the given moment, which seems reasonable given that they are still a preview feature |
Before this PR
I accidentally pushed and merged a test case with a suppression that broke the test: #1412.
After this PR
==COMMIT_MSG==
Actually support records with
StrictUnusedVariable==COMMIT_MSG==
Possible downsides?
N/A