Fix a few nullability and other minor warnings #187
Conversation
| @@ -54,7 +55,7 @@ | |||
| * @param view the view to scope for | |||
| * @return a {@link LifecycleScopeProvider} against this view. | |||
| */ | |||
| public static LifecycleScopeProvider from(View view) { | |||
| public static LifecycleScopeProvider<ViewLifecycleEvent> from(@Nullable View view) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should not be @Nullable. Also, let's make the return type <?> to keep the ViewLifecycleEvent an implementation detail
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So what triggered this was the explicit check for null -- can that be removed? I can just leave it alone with the warning too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have jsr305 package annotations to signal to static analysis that parameters are nonnull by default
We have the nullcheck as a fallback because we don't trust external users' static analysis and fail eagerly :). Just leave the warning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
got it, clarified with a comment
| @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ | |||
| return; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| Subscriber<? super T>[] newSubscribers = new Subscriber[subscribers.length]; | |||
| @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Subscriber<? super T>[] newSubscribers = new Subscriber[subscribers.length]; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be made to not have generics issues?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so, because you can't create an array of a generic type T. There's always going to be some type munging behind the scenes. It's either cast here, or cast somewhere else and either way it's unchecked.
|
Can you fix the checkstyle errors? |
Fix a few nullability and other minor warnings.