I get a lot of this anomaly. Here BufferedData ist marked as DU' anomaly by PMD. What is wrong with this approach?
private static void summUpBuffer(BufferedReader in) throws IOException {
List<String> bufferedData = new ArrayList<>();
for (String line = in.readLine(); line != null; line = in.readLine()) {
bufferedData.add(line);
}
}
'DU Anomaly' means the code might not do what you intended. Since you never use the variable bufferedData, it is flagged up due to being a pointless assignment.
In essense your method doesn't do anything. All its side effects are local and will be forgotten as soon as the method returns.
Complete the method and the warning will most likely go away.
Edit: Actually there is one side-effect, namely the reading of the BufferedReader. That's probably why bufferedData is the only thing flagged in this way.
Related
So I have a Method
public modifiers Foo foo(Bar bar){
blah;
blah;
veryInterestingStmt;
moreBlah();
return XYZ;
}
I now want to split this method s.t. everything in its body is extracted into a separate method (programmatically).
I.e.
public modifiers Foo foo(Bar bar){
return trulyFoo(bar);
}
public modifiers Foo trulyFoo(Bar bar){
blah;
blah;
veryInterestingStmt;
moreBlah();
return XYZ;
}
How do I do that, though?
The naive
private void fracture(SootMethod sm) {
SootClass sc = sm.getDeclaringClass();
String auxMethodName = sm.getName() + FRACTURE_SUFFIX;
Type auxReturnType = sm.getReturnType();
List<Type>auxParamTypes = new LinkedList<>(sm.getParameterTypes());
int auxModifiers = sm.getModifiers();
SootMethod auxMethod = sc.addMethod(new SootMethod(auxMethodName,auxParamTypes,auxReturnType,auxModifiers));
Body body = sm.getActiveBody();
Body auxBody = Jimple.v().newBody(auxMethod);
auxMethod.setActiveBody(auxBody);
for(Local l : body.getLocals()){
auxBody.getLocals().add(l);
}
PatchingChain<Unit> units = body.getUnits();
PatchingChain<Unit> auxUnits = auxBody.getUnits();
Iterator<Unit> it = body.getUnits().snapshotIterator();
boolean passedFirstNonidentity = false;
while(it.hasNext()){
Stmt stmt = (Stmt) it.next();
if(!passedFirstNonidentity && !(stmt instanceof IdentityStmt)) {
passedFirstNonidentity = true;
//TODO: if added more parameters than original method had, add their identity stmts here
}
auxUnits.add(stmt);
// if(passedFirstNonidentity) units.remove(stmt); //TODO: uncomment this and later add call to {#code auxMethod}
}
}
}
Doesn't work. If I run, say
DirectedGraph dg = new ExceptionalUnitGraph(auxMethod.getActiveBody());
I get a
java.lang.RuntimeException: Unit graph contains jump to non-existing target
at soot.toolkits.graph.UnitGraph.buildUnexceptionalEdges(UnitGraph.java:128)
at soot.toolkits.graph.ExceptionalUnitGraph.initialize(ExceptionalUnitGraph.java:258)
at soot.toolkits.graph.ExceptionalUnitGraph.<init>(ExceptionalUnitGraph.java:159)
at soot.toolkits.graph.ExceptionalUnitGraph.<init>(ExceptionalUnitGraph.java:192)
The technique of moving code without altering the behavior of the code is called Refactoring and is nicely covered in a book by Martin Fowler.
In your case, I would take the following multi-step approach:
Stand up a "do nothing" function in the function you wish to split, just above the lines of code you wish to move.
Move one or two of those lines of code from the surrounding function int the "do nothing" function, splitting the function, but having the split be a nested call.
Move the split function up (or down) to the edge of the block in the surronding function.
Move teh slpit function out of the block, placing new calls to it either prior to every call of the original function, or after every call of the original function. Note that you may have to rework the handling of return parameters, depending on the details.
It is strongly suggested that you write a set of tests to validate some, if not most, of the overall functionality of this block first. Then, after each change run your tests to verify that you didn't change behavior.
What you are seeing now is a change in behavior which came about by modifying the text of the code in such a manner that it did change behavior. The set of safe transformations of source code is likely smaller than you previously believed, or maybe you just made a simple error. However, the work you are attempting requires more knowledge than can be expressed in a StackOverflow style, question / answer, format. That's why I made the book reference.
If you can narrow the scope, you might get a better response in a future resubmission.
It seems that moving stmts just doesn't work. In contrast, completely replacing the body
Body originalBody = sm.getActiveBody();
originalBody.setMethod(auxMethod);
auxMethod.setActiveBody(originalBody);
Body newBody = Jimple.v().newBody(sm);
sm.setActiveBody(newBody);
and then regenerating the locals, identity stmts (and other stmts you may need) in the newBody looks like a sensible way to go.
I'm doing something that should be trivial- retrieving an enum value from a property and comparing it with a constant of that enum in an if statement. However Android Studio claims the true case is unreachable code and won't compile.
The block is:
if (ScanState.getScanMode() != ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
{
//We're already scanning, but user wants to stop.
stopScanning();
}
else
{
ScanState.setScanMode(newMode);
restartScan();
buttonFlashMode = btnMode;
buttonFlasher();
}
where in an extra ScanState class, I have:
public static ScanModeEnum getScanMode() {
return scanMode;
}
public static void setScanMode(ScanModeEnum scanMode) {
ScanState.scanMode = scanMode;
}
public enum ScanModeEnum
{
SCAN_IDLE,
SCAN_PERSON,
SCAN_BIKE,
SCAN_SEARCH
}
private static ScanModeEnum scanMode = ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE;
Variants I've tried, which Android Studio claims will all evaluate to false are
if(ScanState.getScanMode() == ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
if(ScanState.getScanMode().compareTo(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)!=0)
if(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE == ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
if(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE.equals(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE))
I'm new to Java (more familiar with C#), but an answer to this question suggests that my understanding of this is sound. Is there some stupid mistake I'm making?
Have you tried debugging this and verifying that the block is never actually reached?
I agree this is a very strange situation. If it persists, I can recommend swapping the enum for int constants, and conducting the check on them. It's not a real fix, but more of a workaround, but at least it can unblock you for the moment.
Good grief. After making a seperate method as suggested and discovering the problem lay elsewhere I had a look further up the code. The complete method was;
public void onScanButtonPress(#ButtonFlashMode int button)
{
ScanState.ScanModeEnum newMode;
#ButtonFlashMode int btnMode = 0;
switch (button)
{
case FLASH_BIKE:
newMode = ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_BIKE;
btnMode = FLASH_BIKE;
case FLASH_PERSON:
newMode = ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_PERSON;
btnMode = FLASH_PERSON;
default:
//Unhandled.
return;
}
if (ScanState.getScanMode() != ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
{
//We're already scanning, but user wants to stop.
stopScanning();
}
else
{
ScanState.setScanMode(newMode);
restartScan();
buttonFlashMode = btnMode;
buttonFlasher();
}
}
Since I've forgotten to put break statements in the cases of the switch, it'll always return before the if is ever evaluated. It'll therefore never evaluate to true and so the error is correct- if misleading since it implies (to me at least!) that the if statement does get evaluated. Thanks for the comments, and I figured this was worth leaving (despite being indeed a stupid mistake) because others might be caught out by this.
EDIT: As mentioned by #Bubletan and #MarkoTopolnik, this would not result in a compiler error. Leaving the response as documentation of something that would NOT cause this error.
Do you call anywhere in your code setScanMode? (outside that else block). The compiler may be detecting that the static variable scanMode is never modified, and therefore ScanState.getScanMode() is always ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE, thus code not reachable.
Try invoking setScanMode somewhere in your code (with a value different than ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE) and see if this error disappears.
My java program takes input from the user on the command line. The user has a choice: he may either specify a plain-text file as input with the -inputfile option, or he may leave this option unspecified, in which case the program takes input from System.in. (I've observed this behavior in some programs that come pre-installed with my Ubuntu distro, so I infer that it is acceptable practice.)
So I make a BufferedReader (inBR)that reads from the file, if provided, and a Scanner (inScanner) that reads from System.in otherwise. Only one of these objects is actually instantiated, the other is left as null. Later on, when the program reads a line from input, I have the following code:
String line;
if (inBR != null) {
line = inBR.readLine(); (1)
} else {
line = inScanner.nextLine(); (2)
}
Which gives me the compile time errors variable inBR might not have been initialized and variable inScanner might not have been initialized at lines (1) and (2), respectively.
What is the acceptable solution here? I've considered, "initialize the variable that's supposed to be null as an Object to shut up the compiler." But this is just a hack; surely there's a better way.
Also, why isn't this a runtime exception, as a NullPointerException?
EDIT: inScanner.readLine() => inScanner.nextLine()
Declaring them this way would avoid the compilation error :
BufferedReader inBR = null;
Scanner inScanner = null;
Of course you still have to give them actual values before accessing them, or you'll get NullPointerException.
In java all variables that are used must be initialized at some point.
public void example(){
String name;
if(name == null) return null;
}
In the above example the variable name has not been initialized. There are several ways to solve this problem:
public void example1(){
String name = null;
if(name == null) return null;
}
This would solve the problem.
This would also solve the problem
public void exapmle2(){
String name = "";
if(name == null) return null;
}
Make the condition whether or not a file is provided. For example, if a file is provided, create the buffered reader and set line immediately. Otherwise, create a scanner and set the line.
static void goOut(String in) {
//instance variables
String fileCopy = currentLine + in;
try {
FileWriter writer = new FileWriter(output,true);
writer.write(line1 + System.getProperty("line.separator", "\r\n"));
writer.write(fileCopy + System.getProperty("line.separator", "\r\n"));
} catch(IOException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
Edited code to the correct standard as pointed out by other users.
of course because thats what you r telling it to do. every time is called it writes both x and the number. a quick fix: you can keep a flag if it is the first run set it flag = true. and check within ur method, sth like this:
public class YourClass{
private boolean didRun = false;
static void goOut(String in) {
...... init ur file and writer
if(!didRun)
writer.write(Y);
writer.write(in);
writer.close();
didRun = true;
}
}
I dont know the rest of the code but i think thats what u need
I believe you want to separate the jobs the "goOut" is responsible for.
You should make "goOut" only write the numbers (in your example).
The writing of the y's (in your example) should not be apart of the method and called once, at the start of writing to the file.
Also, #Jon Skeet is right about the multiple FileWriters. Use one, since its the same file.
Agree, sounds like a disaster.
When you use multiple writers to access the file, I would expect to get unpredictable results.
I dont think there is any guarantee that FileWriter1 would complete the task before FileWriter2.
In addition, the method is not synchronized.
I need to be able to re-use a java.io.InputStream multiple times, and I figured the following code would work, but it only works the first time.
Code
public class Clazz
{
private java.io.InputStream dbInputStream, firstDBInputStream;
private ArrayTable db;
public Clazz(java.io.InputStream defDB)
{
this.firstDBInputStream = defDB;
this.dbInputStream = defDB;
if (db == null)
throw new java.io.FileNotFoundException("Could not find the database at " + db);
if (dbInputStream.markSupported())
dbInputStream.mark(Integer.MAX_VALUE);
loadDatabaseToArrayTable();
}
public final void loadDatabaseToArrayTable() throws java.io.IOException
{
this.dbInputStream = firstDBInputStream;
if (dbInputStream.markSupported())
dbInputStream.reset();
java.util.Scanner fileScanner = new java.util.Scanner(dbInputStream);
String CSV = "";
for (int i = 0; fileScanner.hasNextLine(); i++)
CSV += fileScanner.nextLine() + "\n";
db = ArrayTable.createArrayTableFromCSV(CSV);
}
public void reloadDatabase()//A method called by the UI
{
try
{
loadDatabaseToArrayTable();
}
catch (Throwable t)
{
//Alert the user that an error has occurred
}
}
}
Note that ArrayTable is a class of mine, which uses arrays to give an interface for working with tables.
Question
In this program, the database is shown directly to the user immediately after the reloadDatabase() method is called, and so any solution involving saving the initial read to an object in memory is useless, as that will NOT refresh the data (think of it like a browser; when you press "Refresh", you want it to fetch the information again, not just display the information it fetched the first time). How can I read a java.io.InputStream more than once?
You can't necessarily read an InputStream more than once. Some implementations support it, some don't. What you are doing is checking the markSupported method, which is indeed an indicator if you can read the same stream twice, but then you are ignoring the result. You have to call that method to see if you can read the stream twice, and if you can't, make other arrangements.
Edit (in response to comment): When I wrote my answer, my "other arrangements" was to get a fresh InputStream. However, when I read in your comments to your question about what you want to do, I'm not sure it is possible. For the basics of the operation, you probably want RandomAccessFile (at least that would be my first guess, and if it worked, that would be the easiest) - however you will have file access issues. You have an application actively writing to a file, and another reading that file, you will have problems - exactly which problems will depend on the OS, so whatever solution would require more testing. I suggest a separate question on SO that hits on that point, and someone who has tried that out can perhaps give you more insight.
you never mark the stream to be reset
public Clazz(java.io.InputStream defDB)
{
firstDBInputStream = defDB.markSupported()?defDB:new BufferedInputStream(defDB);
//BufferedInputStream supports marking
firstDBInputStream.mark(500000);//avoid IOException on first reset
}
public final void loadDatabaseToArrayTable() throws java.io.IOException
{
this.dbInputStream = firstDBInputStream;
dbInputStream.reset();
dbInputStream.mark(500000);//or however long the data is
java.util.Scanner fileScanner = new java.util.Scanner(dbInputStream);
StringBuilder CSV = "";//StringBuilder is more efficient in a loop
while(fileScanner.hasNextLine())
CSV.append(fileScanner.nextLine()).append("\n");
db = ArrayTable.createArrayTableFromCSV(CSV.toString());
}
however you could instead keep a copy of the original ArrayTable and copy that when you need to (or even the created string to rebuild it)
this code creates the string and caches it so you can safely discard the inputstreams and just use readCSV to build the ArrayTable
private String readCSV=null;
public final void loadDatabaseToArrayTable() throws java.io.IOException
{
if(readCSV==null){
this.dbInputStream = firstDBInputStream;
java.util.Scanner fileScanner = new java.util.Scanner(dbInputStream);
StringBuilder CSV = "";//StringBuilder is more efficient in a loop
while(fileScanner.hasNextLine())
CSV.append(fileScanner.nextLine()).append("\n");
readCSV=CSV.toString();
fileScanner.close();
}
db = ArrayTable.createArrayTableFromCSV(readCSV);
}
however if you want new information you'll need to create a new stream to read from again