eclipse warnings

[John Hendrikx]

This one for example: https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1095

It was auto closed, and at this point probably has many merge conflicts, 
which is why I let it go closed.

--John

On 05/12/2023 20:27, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>
> > I did many warning fixes, and there are PR's outstanding with warning 
> fixes, but they're not getting reviewed.
>
> Are they still in Draft?
>
> https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Arfr
>
> -andy
>
> *From: *openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-retn at openjdk.org> on behalf of John 
> Hendrikx <john.hendrikx at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 03:16
> *To: *openjfx-dev at openjdk.org <openjfx-dev at openjdk.org>
> *Subject: *Re: eclipse warnings
>
> IMHO, there is no capacity for this.
>
> I did many warning fixes, and there are PR's outstanding with warning 
> fixes, but they're not getting reviewed.
>
> There are other PR's outstanding that are more valuable, but are not 
> getting reviewed.
>
> I feel we need to fix that first before we can endulge in warning fixes.
>
> As for the potential null pointer access, it's often a false positive; 
> static analyzers have a hard time determining if a loop is entered at 
> least once (or an if in that loop) and so will warn that a local can 
> maybe be null if it was initalized inside a loop.
>
> --John
>
> On 04/12/2023 17:34, 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/attachments/20231205/f55cb73f/attachment-0001.htm>