The last two are just unnecessary code, I see no problems turning this warning off.
But the 'potential null access' one, though being a bit overeager, might warrant a deeper scrutiny, as it might point to real bugs. I would suggest to turn this warning on and fix or mark the occurences with "SuppressWarning" where appropriate. But you do have a good point about review cycles. -andy From: openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-r...@openjdk.org> on behalf of Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 at 09:05 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.org <openjfx-dev@openjdk.org> Subject: Re: eclipse warnings We did a few of these sort of cleanup fixes a year or so ago. In general, this sort of cleanup *might* be useful, but also causes some code churn and takes review cycles to ensure that there is no unintentional side effect. The last two might be OK cleanup tasks, but I wouldn't make them a high priority. Worth noting is that a seemingly redundant null check or instanceof check is not always a bad thing, so I wouldn't clean up all of them. The first group is the more interesting one. In some cases a potential null access can highlight actual bugs. However, I oppose any automated solution for these, since adding a null check where you don't expect a null (even if you IDE thinks it might be possible) can hide the root cause of a problem. We aren't going to enforce these, though, so you'll likely need to configure your IDE to be less picky. -- Kevin On 12/4/2023 8:34 AM, Andy Goryachev wrote: Dear colleagues: Imported the openjfx project into another workspace with a more stringent error checking and discovered a few issues: 1. potential null pointer access: 295 2. unnecessary cast or instanceof: 190 3. redundant null check: 61 Do we want to clean these up? -andy
