-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 744
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix -XepDisableAllWarnings
flag when passed on its own
#3462
Conversation
-XepDisableAllWarnings
flag-XepDisableAllWarnings
flag when passed on its own
@@ -143,7 +143,8 @@ public ScannerSupplier applyOverrides(ErrorProneOptions errorProneOptions) { | |||
&& errorProneOptions.getFlags().isEmpty() | |||
&& !errorProneOptions.isEnableAllChecksAsWarnings() | |||
&& !errorProneOptions.isDropErrorsToWarnings() | |||
&& !errorProneOptions.isDisableAllChecks()) { | |||
&& !errorProneOptions.isDisableAllChecks() | |||
&& !errorProneOptions.isDisableAllWarnings()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice catch. Checking the usages of parameter errorProneOptions
in this method, I suspect that this if
-statement should also add && !errorProneOptions.ignoreUnknownChecks()
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIUC, this method checks whether some/all checks have an overridden severity; ignoreUnknownChecks
is different (and BTW is also useless without specific severity overrides, so would be implicitly covered anyway)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is also useless without specific severity overrides, so would be implicitly covered anyway
Right! 🤦
FYI @cushon. I think this is a pretty safe bug fix |
Was there some issue with merging this PR? I see commits related to it but nothing yet on the main branch. |
Oops. I think I see what happened, and it might be an easy fix.... |
This MR contains the following updates: | Package | Type | Update | Change | |---|---|---|---| | [com.google.errorprone:error_prone_core](https://errorprone.info) ([source](https://github.com/google/error-prone)) | | minor | `2.16` -> `2.18.0` | | [com.google.errorprone:error_prone_annotations](https://errorprone.info) ([source](https://github.com/google/error-prone)) | compile | minor | `2.16` -> `2.18.0` | | [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-failsafe-plugin](https://maven.apache.org/surefire/) | build | patch | `3.0.0-M7` -> `3.0.0-M8` | | [org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin](https://maven.apache.org/surefire/) | build | patch | `3.0.0-M7` -> `3.0.0-M8` | --- ### Release Notes <details> <summary>google/error-prone</summary> ### [`v2.18.0`](https://github.com/google/error-prone/releases/tag/v2.18.0): Error Prone 2.18.0 [Compare Source](google/error-prone@v2.17.0...v2.18.0) New Checkers: - [`InjectOnBugCheckers`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/InjectOnBugCheckers) - [`LabelledBreakTarget`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/LabelledBreakTarget) - [`UnusedLabel`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/UnusedLabel) - [`YodaCondition`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/YodaCondition) Fixes issues: [#​1650](google/error-prone#1650), [#​2706](google/error-prone#2706), [#​3404](google/error-prone#3404), [#​3493](google/error-prone#3493), [#​3504](google/error-prone#3504), [#​3519](google/error-prone#3519), [#​3579](google/error-prone#3579), [#​3610](google/error-prone#3610), [#​3632](google/error-prone#3632), [#​3638](google/error-prone#3638), [#​3645](google/error-prone#3645), [#​3646](google/error-prone#3646), [#​3652](google/error-prone#3652), [#​3690](google/error-prone#3690) **Full Changelog**: google/error-prone@v2.17.0...v2.18.0 ### [`v2.17.0`](https://github.com/google/error-prone/releases/tag/v2.17.0): Error Prone 2.17.0 [Compare Source](google/error-prone@v2.16...v2.17.0) New Checkers: - [`AvoidObjectArrays`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/AvoidObjectArrays) - [`Finalize`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/Finalize) - [`IgnoredPureGetter`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/IgnoredPureGetter) - [`ImpossibleNullComparison`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/ProtoFieldNullComparison) - [`MathAbsoluteNegative`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/MathAbsoluteNegative) - [`NewFileSystem`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/NewFileSystem) - [`StatementSwitchToExpressionSwitch`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/StatementSwitchToExpressionSwitch) - [`UnqualifiedYield`](https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/UnqualifiedYield) Fixed issues: [#​2321](google/error-prone#2321), [#​3144](google/error-prone#3144), [#​3297](google/error-prone#3297), [#​3428](google/error-prone#3428), [#​3437](google/error-prone#3437), [#​3462](google/error-prone#3462), [#​3482](google/error-prone#3482), [#​3494](google/error-prone#3494) **Full Changelog**: google/error-prone@v2.16...v2.17.0 </details> --- ### Configuration 📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined). 🚦 **Automerge**: Enabled. ♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever MR is behind base branch, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox. 👻 **Immortal**: This MR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get [config help](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions) if that's undesired. --- - [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this MR, check this box --- This MR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate). <!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzNC4yNC4wIiwidXBkYXRlZEluVmVyIjoiMzQuMjQuMCJ9-->
Without this change, the flag would not work when passed as the single Error Prone argument. Not sure how to add a regression test for this, but the fix works locally.