Community
Participate
Working Groups
Xtend compiler should support the @SuppressWarnings annotation. Also currently the compiler would generate @SuppressWarnings twice into the Java source code if the use annotated the Xtend class with it.
*** Bug 387974 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
We now have a compiler flag for enabling/disabling the synthetic @SupressWarnings("all"). We should respect @SupressWarnings in the validator, this could be integrated in a specialized IssueSeverities. If synthetic suppress warnings is activated and a type declaration contains a manual @SupressWarnings, the manual one should not be generated.
Created attachment 225878 [details] Suggestion to fix this ticket
Pushed fix to avoid manual @SuppressWarnings when synthetic @SuppressWarnings is enabled to master.
unscheduling. I thought it was necessary to suppress unused warnings when using Java-black-box expressions in active annotations. But we decided to go with a different protocol.
I have the following scenario: Active Annotation which generates 3 methods. In an implementation class I declare just the field. Example: class ServiceAccessor { @Service ProjectIndexService projectIndexService } This implementation causes an "unused" warning. It is VERY ANNOYING because there is no way to suppress it (even the xtend-maven-plugin does not have an option to deactivate this warning).
(In reply to Alexander Fichtinger from comment #6) > I have the following scenario: > > Active Annotation which generates 3 methods. > > In an implementation class I declare just the field. > > Example: > > class ServiceAccessor { > @Service ProjectIndexService projectIndexService > } > > This implementation causes an "unused" warning. > > It is VERY ANNOYING because there is no way to suppress it (even the > xtend-maven-plugin does not have an option to deactivate this warning). This is covered in bugzilla #404167
+1
One hack (of many) to work around this, is to do a double assignment: static MyPackage myPackage = myPackage = MyPackage.eINSTANCE This obviously doesn't work with finals. Incidentally, the Ecore idiom above is the use-case that drove me to vote for this enhancement; eINSTANCE registers the package in the global package registry, which is sometimes needed early in static initialization.
(In reply to Alexander Fichtinger from comment #6) > I have the following scenario: > > Active Annotation which generates 3 methods. > > In an implementation class I declare just the field. > > Example: > > class ServiceAccessor { > @Service ProjectIndexService projectIndexService > } > > This implementation causes an "unused" warning. > > It is VERY ANNOYING because there is no way to suppress it (even the > xtend-maven-plugin does not have an option to deactivate this warning). This bit is solved in 2.6 already. There's new API for active annotations that let's you flag a MutableField (markAsRead).
Just some additional information: I don't mind @SuppressWarnings("all"), but it looks like that this annotation will prevent Sonarqube from reporting possible issues on the generated Java code (see http://sonarqube.15.x6.nabble.com/sonarqube-findbugs-and-generated-sources-td5028237.html). I tried adding an explicit @SuppressWarnings annotation, e.g., @SuppressWarnings("serial"), but the generated Java file still contains @SuppressWarnings("all")
hi, in my case, i'm using checkstyle on my projects and the @SuppressWarnings("all") on top of every generated class reports no violations. ( of course :) ) I have to manually supress the annotation to have an analysis of the code. I meanly use it for copyright header checks.
Committed a change for release 2.8: @SuppressWarnings is not generated if it is already present in the Xtend source. This should help for the use cases mentioned above. See also https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=388749 What is left to be done for this bug: (In reply to Sven Efftinge from comment #2) > We should respect @SupressWarnings in the validator, this could be > integrated in a specialized IssueSeverities.
