Adobe-Consulting-Services/acs-aem-commons

        } else if (StringUtils.endsWith(request.getHeader("Referer"), "/cf")) {
            // Do not apply to pages loaded in the Classic Content Finder
            return false;
        } else if (StringUtils.startsWith(request.getPathInfo(), "/libs/granite/core/content/login.html")) {

Close

Having two cases in a switch statement or two branches in an if chain with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then in an if chain they should be combined, or for a switch, one should fall through to the other.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch (i) {
  case 1:
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 2:
    doSomethingDifferent();
    break;
  case 3:  // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  default:
    doTheRest();
}

if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
  doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();  // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
  doTheRest();
}

Exceptions

Blocks in an if chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a switch statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following break.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomethingElse();
} else {
  doSomething();
}

But this exception does not apply to if chains without else-s, or to switch-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of if chains with else-s, or of switch-es with default clauses, rule {rule:java:S3923} raises a bug.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomething();
}

        } else if (StringUtils.equals(request.getHeader("X-Requested-With"), "XMLHttpRequest")) {
            // Do not inject into XHR requests
            return false;
        } else if (StringUtils.contains(request.getPathInfo(), ".")

Close

Having two cases in a switch statement or two branches in an if chain with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then in an if chain they should be combined, or for a switch, one should fall through to the other.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch (i) {
  case 1:
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 2:
    doSomethingDifferent();
    break;
  case 3:  // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  default:
    doTheRest();
}

if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
  doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();  // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
  doTheRest();
}

Exceptions

Blocks in an if chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a switch statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following break.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomethingElse();
} else {
  doSomething();
}

But this exception does not apply to if chains without else-s, or to switch-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of if chains with else-s, or of switch-es with default clauses, rule {rule:java:S3923} raises a bug.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomething();
}

        } else if (StringUtils.startsWith(request.getPathInfo(), "/libs/granite/core/content/login.html")) {
            // Do not apply on login screen
            return false;
        }

Close

Having two cases in a switch statement or two branches in an if chain with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then in an if chain they should be combined, or for a switch, one should fall through to the other.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch (i) {
  case 1:
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 2:
    doSomethingDifferent();
    break;
  case 3:  // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  default:
    doTheRest();
}

if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
  doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();  // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
  doTheRest();
}

Exceptions

Blocks in an if chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a switch statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following break.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomethingElse();
} else {
  doSomething();
}

But this exception does not apply to if chains without else-s, or to switch-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of if chains with else-s, or of switch-es with default clauses, rule {rule:java:S3923} raises a bug.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomething();
}

        } else if (StringUtils.endsWith(request.getHeader("Referer"), "/editor.html" + request.getRequestURI())) {
            // Do not apply to pages loaded in the TouchUI editor.html
            return false;
        } else if (StringUtils.endsWith(request.getHeader("Referer"), "/cf")) {

Close

Having two cases in a switch statement or two branches in an if chain with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then in an if chain they should be combined, or for a switch, one should fall through to the other.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch (i) {
  case 1:
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 2:
    doSomethingDifferent();
    break;
  case 3:  // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  default:
    doTheRest();
}

if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
  doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();  // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
  doTheRest();
}

Exceptions

Blocks in an if chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a switch statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following break.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomethingElse();
} else {
  doSomething();
}

But this exception does not apply to if chains without else-s, or to switch-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of if chains with else-s, or of switch-es with default clauses, rule {rule:java:S3923} raises a bug.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomething();
}

                && !StringUtils.contains(request.getPathInfo(), ".html")) {
            // If extension is provided it must be .html
            return false;
        } else if (StringUtils.endsWith(request.getHeader("Referer"), "/editor.html" + request.getRequestURI())) {

Close

Having two cases in a switch statement or two branches in an if chain with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then in an if chain they should be combined, or for a switch, one should fall through to the other.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch (i) {
  case 1:
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 2:
    doSomethingDifferent();
    break;
  case 3:  // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
    doFirstThing();
    doSomething();
    break;
  default:
    doTheRest();
}

if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
  doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
  doFirstThing();
  doTheThing();  // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
  doTheRest();
}

Exceptions

Blocks in an if chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a switch statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following break.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomethingElse();
} else {
  doSomething();
}

But this exception does not apply to if chains without else-s, or to switch-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of if chains with else-s, or of switch-es with default clauses, rule {rule:java:S3923} raises a bug.

if (a == 1) {
  doSomething();  //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
  doSomething();
}

 * ACS AEM Commons

Close

Checks the header of a source file against a header that contains aregular expression for each line of the source header.

Rationale: In some projects checking against afixed header is not sufficient, e.g. the header might require acopyright line where the year information is not static.

For example, consider the following header:

<source><br>line 1: ^/{71}$<br>line 2: ^// checkstyle:$<br>line 3: ^// Checks Java source code for adherence to a set of rules\.$<br>line 4: ^// Copyright \(C\) \d\d\d\d Oliver Burn$<br>line 5: ^// Last modification by \$Author.*\$$<br>line 6: ^/{71}$<br>line 7:<br>line 8: ^package<br>line 9:<br>line 10: ^import<br>line 11:<br>line 12: ^/\*\*<br>line 13: ^ \*([^/]|$)<br>line 14: ^ \*/<br> </source>

Lines 1 and 6 demonstrate a more compact notation for 71 '/'characters. Line 4 enforces that the copyright notice includes afour digit year. Line 5 is an example how to enforce revisioncontrol keywords in a file header. Lines 12-14 is a template forjavadoc (line 13 is so complicated to remove conflict with and ofjavadoc comment). Lines 7, 9 and 11 will be treated as '^$' andwill forcefully expect the line to be empty.

Different programming languages have different comment syntaxrules, but all of them start a comment with a non-wordcharacter. Hence you can often use the non-word characterclass to abstract away the concrete comment syntax and allowchecking the header for different languages with a singleheader definition. For example, consider the following headerspecification (note that this is not the full Apache licenseheader):

<source><br>line 1: ^#!<br>line 2: ^&lt;\?xml.*&gt;$<br>line 3: ^\W*$<br>line 4: ^\W*Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable\.$<br>line 5: ^\W*Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2\.0 \(the "License"\);$<br>line 6: ^\W*$<br> </source>

Lines 1 and 2 leave room for technical header lines, e.g. the"#!/bin/sh" line in Unix shell scripts, or the XML file headerof XML files. Set the multiline property to "1, 2" so theselines can be ignored for file types where they do no apply.Lines 3 through 6 define the actual header content. Note howlines 2, 4 and 5 use escapes for characters that have specialregexp semantics.

In default configuration, if header is not specified, the default valueof header is set to null and the check does not rise any violations.

This documentation is written and maintained by the Checkstyle community and is covered under the same license as the Checkstyle project.