Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Improve binding context management #5130

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
BraisGabin wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Improve binding context management #5130

BraisGabin wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member

@BraisGabin BraisGabin commented Jul 24, 2022

This is the first step to work on #3577

We had different ways/places to disable a rule to don't run when it doesn't have a proper bindingContext. But it wasn't a very efficient way because we were checking it while we where traversing the PSI tree. detekt has this visitCondition that let to any rule to decide if it should be executed or not. This should be way more performant because we disable the rule before we start traversing the PSI tree.

And the new rule ensures that we make this in a consistent way.

This PR uses the new detekt-authors module implemented on #5129

@github-actions github-actions bot added the rules label Jul 24, 2022
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from e12cc92 to a278380 Compare July 24, 2022 14:24
@github-actions github-actions bot added the build label Jul 24, 2022
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the create-authors-rules branch from 0264491 to ec37d30 Compare July 24, 2022 14:25
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from a278380 to 95be282 Compare July 24, 2022 14:26
@BraisGabin BraisGabin added this to the 1.22.0 milestone Jul 24, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the build label Jul 24, 2022
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the create-authors-rules branch from ec37d30 to 59f8919 Compare July 25, 2022 07:55
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from 95be282 to 0e37bf7 Compare July 25, 2022 08:05
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the create-authors-rules branch from 59f8919 to 7da777b Compare July 25, 2022 08:14
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from 0e37bf7 to c1bd249 Compare July 25, 2022 08:17
@3flex 3flex mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2022
Merged
@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member Author

BraisGabin commented Jul 25, 2022

🤔 ArrayPrimitive is an "interesting" case. It's annotated with @RequiresTypeSolving but actually is a rule with mixed behavior (#2994). Here we have two options: Or we remove the annotation and keep the rule with its mixed behaviour or we remove the mixed behaviour and pass it to a true @RequiresTypeSolving rule.

@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from c1bd249 to 46d79c9 Compare July 25, 2022 08:59
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from 46d79c9 to 608d49e Compare July 25, 2022 10:35
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the improve-binding-context-management branch from 608d49e to b41bbac Compare July 25, 2022 11:00
@BraisGabin BraisGabin mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2022
Closed
@marschwar
Copy link
Contributor

marschwar commented Jul 28, 2022

I like to idea of removing this boilerplate check, but:

  • Are you sure there is only one rule with mixed behavior. We had so many bug reports where this was the cause and it feels like we complained about this much more often than just for one rule.
  • If we do this, I propose to change the retention of the RequiresTypeResolution annotation so that we can extract it from the class file and remove the rule in the Analyzer or Rule#visitCondition

@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member Author

BraisGabin commented Jul 28, 2022

  • Are you sure there is only one rule with mixed behavior. We had so many bug reports where this was the cause and it feels like we complained about this much more often than just for one rule.

No, there are more rules with mixed behavior. But those are not annotated with RequiresTypeResolution because those rules doesn't require it. The problem is this rule that doesn't require it but it claims so.

  • If we do this, I propose to change the retention of the RequiresTypeResolution annotation so that we can extract it from the class file and remove the rule in the Analyzer or Rule#visitCondition

I was thinking about that too. But that would force us to use reflection apis. I'm not against. It would be a way cleaner approach if we are fine with the usage of reflection.

@marschwar
Copy link
Contributor

marschwar commented Jul 28, 2022

Why would we not use reflection? Because of a runtime performance penalty?

@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member Author

BraisGabin commented Jul 29, 2022

Why would we not use reflection? Because of a runtime performance penalty?

To be honest, because I'm an Android developer and reflection is the devil there. But you are completely right, I don't see a good reason to don't use reflection here. That would make this rule completely useless and that's good! The code that doesn't exist doesn't have bugs :) I'm keeping this open for now but I'll open other PR implementing the reflection idea. If we merge the other one I'll close this one.

cortinico
cortinico reviewed Jul 30, 2022
View reviewed changes
.../io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/authors/RequiresTypeResolutionRulesDoesNotRunWithoutAContext.kt
*
* <noncompliant>
* @@RequiresTypeResolution
* class MyRule(config: Config = Config.empty) : Rule(config) {
Copy link
Member

@cortinico cortinico Jul 30, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My 2 cents here: shouldn't we just instead have a Rule subclass or a parameter to the Rule constructor, or a property inside Rule that users can override?

While a generic visitCondition works, it does not prevent from rules accidentally using TR and forgetting to add the @RequiresTypeResolution annotation.

Copy link
Contributor

@marschwar marschwar Jul 31, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While a generic visitCondition works, it does not prevent from rules accidentally using TR and forgetting to add the @RequiresTypeResolution annotation.

You are right. That is why #5148 is still needed

This was referenced Aug 3, 2022
Merged
Merged
@BraisGabin BraisGabin force-pushed the create-authors-rules branch 2 times, most recently from 31fd7ef to a231471 Compare August 4, 2022 15:52
@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member Author

BraisGabin commented Aug 4, 2022

I'm closing this one. #5176 is clearly a better solution.

@BraisGabin BraisGabin closed this Aug 4, 2022
@cortinico cortinico deleted the improve-binding-context-management branch April 6, 2023 17:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cortinico cortinico cortinico left review comments

@marschwar marschwar marschwar left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

rules

Projects

None yet

Milestone

1.22.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@BraisGabin @marschwar @cortinico