Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi Hannes,
>>> These new tests are very much appreciated. You do not have to go
>>> wild with that many return type tests; IMO, the simple one and the
>>> most complicated one should do it. (And btw, s/cart/card/)
>>
>> Well, they appeared naturally as a result during development and made
>> it easier to spot errors when you know up to which level of
>> complexity it still worked. Is there a stronger reason to remove
>> tests which might not be needed, e.g., runtime cost on some CI
>> machines?
>
> I totally understand how the test cases evolved. Having many of them
> is not a big deal. It's just the disproportion of tests of this new
> feature vs. the existing tests that your patch creates, in particular,
> when earlier of the new tests are subsumed by later new tests.
Sure thing, I'll see if I can remove some tests.
>> Another thing I've noticed (with my suggested patch) is that I should
>> not try to match constructor signatures. I think that's impossible
>> because they are indistinguishable from method calls, e.g., in
>>
>> public class MyClass {
>> MyClass(String RIGHT) {
>> someMethodCall();
>> someOtherMethod(17)
>> .doThat();
>> // Whatever
>> // ChangeMe
>> }
>> }
>>
>> there is no regex way to prefer MyClass(String RIGHT) over
>> someOtherMethod().
>
> Good find.
The longer you play with it, the more you find out.
>> So all in all, I'd propose this version in the next patch version:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> PATTERNS("java",
>> "!^[ \t]*(catch|do|for|if|instanceof|new|return|switch|throw|while)\n"
>> "^[ \t]*("
>> /* Class, enum, and interface declarations */
>> "(([a-z]+[ \t]+)*(class|enum|interface)[ \t]+[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_$]*[ \t]+.*)"
>> /* Method definitions; note that constructor signatures are not */
>> /* matched because they are indistinguishable from method calls. */
>> "|(([A-Za-z_<>&][][?&<>.,A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]+)+[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]*\\([^;]*)"
>> ")$",
>> /* -- */
>> "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
>> "|[-+0-9.e]+[fFlL]?|0[xXbB]?[0-9a-fA-F]+[lL]?"
>> "|[-+*/<>%&^|=!]="
>> "|--|\\+\\+|<<=?|>>>?=?|&&|\\|\\|"),
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> That looks fine.
>
> One suggestion, though. You do not have to have all positive patterns
> ("class, enum, interface" and "method definitions") in a single
> pattern separated by "|". You can place them on different "lines"
> (note the "\n" at the end of the first pattern):
>
> /* Class, enum, and interface declarations */
> "^[ \t]*(...(class|enum|interface)...)$\n"
> /*
> * Method definitions; note that constructor signatures are not
> * matched because they are indistinguishable from method calls.
> */
> "^[ \t]*(...[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]*\\([^;]*))$",
>
> I don't think there is a technical difference, but I find this form
> easier to understand because fewer open parentheses have to be
> tracked.
Yes, indeed. Because of that reason I've put the first ( and the last )
on separate lines but your approach is even better.
Patch version v5 will come anytime soon.
Thanks!
Tassilo
