prowide/prowide-core

Looking at the set of methods in a class, including superclass methods, and finding two methods or fields that differ only by capitalization is confusing to users of the class. It is similarly confusing to have a method and a field which differ only in capitalization or a method and a field with exactly the same name and visibility.

In the case of methods, it may have been a mistake on the part of the original developer, who intended to override a superclass method, but instead added a new method with nearly the same name.

Otherwise, this situation simply indicates poor naming. Method names should be action-oriented, and thus contain a verb, which is unlikely in the case where both a method and a member have the same name (with or without capitalization differences). However, renaming a public method could be disruptive to callers. Therefore renaming the member is the recommended action.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Car{

  public DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // Noncompliant; duplicates field name
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  public void teardown(){...}  // Noncompliant; not an override. It it really what's intended?

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveFast(){...} //Huh?
}

Compliant Solution

public class Car{

  private DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // field visibility reduced
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  @Override
  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveReallyFast(){...}

}

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Shared coding conventions allow teams to collaborate efficiently. This rule checks that all constant names match a provided regular expression.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default regular expression ^[A-Z][A-Z0-9]*(_[A-Z0-9]+)*$:

public class MyClass {
  public static final int first = 1;
}

public enum MyEnum {
  first;
}

Compliant Solution

public class MyClass {
  public static final int FIRST = 1;
}

public enum MyEnum {
  FIRST;
}

In the absence of enclosing curly braces, the line immediately after a conditional is the one that is conditionally executed. By both convention and good practice, such lines are indented. In the absence of both curly braces and indentation the intent of the original programmer is entirely unclear and perhaps not actually what is executed. Additionally, such code is highly likely to be confusing to maintainers.

Noncompliant Code Example

if (condition)  // Noncompliant
doTheThing();

doTheOtherThing();
somethingElseEntirely();

foo();

Compliant Solution

if (condition)
  doTheThing();

doTheOtherThing();
somethingElseEntirely();

foo();

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

Shared coding conventions allow teams to collaborate efficiently. This rule checks that all constant names match a provided regular expression.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default regular expression ^[A-Z][A-Z0-9]*(_[A-Z0-9]+)*$:

public class MyClass {
  public static final int first = 1;
}

public enum MyEnum {
  first;
}

Compliant Solution

public class MyClass {
  public static final int FIRST = 1;
}

public enum MyEnum {
  FIRST;
}

The requirement for a final default clause is defensive programming. The clause should either take appropriate action, or contain a suitable comment as to why no action is taken.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch (param) {  //missing default clause
  case 0:
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 1:
    doSomethingElse();
    break;
}

switch (param) {
  default: // default clause should be the last one
    error();
    break;
  case 0:
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 1:
    doSomethingElse();
    break;
}

Compliant Solution

switch (param) {
  case 0:
    doSomething();
    break;
  case 1:
    doSomethingElse();
    break;
  default:
    error();
    break;
}

Exceptions

If the switch parameter is an Enum and if all the constants of this enum are used in the case statements, then no default clause is expected.

Example:

public enum Day {
    SUNDAY, MONDAY
}
...
switch(day) {
  case SUNDAY:
    doSomething();
    break;
  case MONDAY:
    doSomethingElse();
    break;
}

See

• MITRE, CWE-478 - Missing Default Case in Switch Statement
• CERT, MSC01-C. - Strive for logical completeness

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Looking at the set of methods in a class, including superclass methods, and finding two methods or fields that differ only by capitalization is confusing to users of the class. It is similarly confusing to have a method and a field which differ only in capitalization or a method and a field with exactly the same name and visibility.

In the case of methods, it may have been a mistake on the part of the original developer, who intended to override a superclass method, but instead added a new method with nearly the same name.

Otherwise, this situation simply indicates poor naming. Method names should be action-oriented, and thus contain a verb, which is unlikely in the case where both a method and a member have the same name (with or without capitalization differences). However, renaming a public method could be disruptive to callers. Therefore renaming the member is the recommended action.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Car{

  public DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // Noncompliant; duplicates field name
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  public void teardown(){...}  // Noncompliant; not an override. It it really what's intended?

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveFast(){...} //Huh?
}

Compliant Solution

public class Car{

  private DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // field visibility reduced
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  @Override
  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveReallyFast(){...}

}

Looking at the set of methods in a class, including superclass methods, and finding two methods or fields that differ only by capitalization is confusing to users of the class. It is similarly confusing to have a method and a field which differ only in capitalization or a method and a field with exactly the same name and visibility.

In the case of methods, it may have been a mistake on the part of the original developer, who intended to override a superclass method, but instead added a new method with nearly the same name.

Otherwise, this situation simply indicates poor naming. Method names should be action-oriented, and thus contain a verb, which is unlikely in the case where both a method and a member have the same name (with or without capitalization differences). However, renaming a public method could be disruptive to callers. Therefore renaming the member is the recommended action.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Car{

  public DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // Noncompliant; duplicates field name
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  public void teardown(){...}  // Noncompliant; not an override. It it really what's intended?

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveFast(){...} //Huh?
}

Compliant Solution

public class Car{

  private DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // field visibility reduced
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  @Override
  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveReallyFast(){...}

}

It is highly recommended not to use wildcard types as return types. Because the type inference rules are fairly complex it is unlikely the user of that API will know how to use it correctly.

Let's take the example of method returning a "List<? extends Animal>". Is it possible on this list to add a Dog, a Cat, ... we simply don't know. And neither does the compiler, which is why it will not allow such a direct use. The use of wildcard types should be limited to method parameters.

This rule raises an issue when a method returns a wildcard type.

Noncompliant Code Example

List<? extends Animal> getAnimals(){...}

Compliant Solution

List<Animal> getAnimals(){...}

or

List<Dog> getAnimals(){...}

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

In the absence of enclosing curly braces, the line immediately after a conditional is the one that is conditionally executed. By both convention and good practice, such lines are indented. In the absence of both curly braces and indentation the intent of the original programmer is entirely unclear and perhaps not actually what is executed. Additionally, such code is highly likely to be confusing to maintainers.

Noncompliant Code Example

if (condition)  // Noncompliant
doTheThing();

doTheOtherThing();
somethingElseEntirely();

foo();

Compliant Solution

if (condition)
  doTheThing();

doTheOtherThing();
somethingElseEntirely();

foo();

Looking at the set of methods in a class, including superclass methods, and finding two methods or fields that differ only by capitalization is confusing to users of the class. It is similarly confusing to have a method and a field which differ only in capitalization or a method and a field with exactly the same name and visibility.

In the case of methods, it may have been a mistake on the part of the original developer, who intended to override a superclass method, but instead added a new method with nearly the same name.

Otherwise, this situation simply indicates poor naming. Method names should be action-oriented, and thus contain a verb, which is unlikely in the case where both a method and a member have the same name (with or without capitalization differences). However, renaming a public method could be disruptive to callers. Therefore renaming the member is the recommended action.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Car{

  public DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // Noncompliant; duplicates field name
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  public void teardown(){...}  // Noncompliant; not an override. It it really what's intended?

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveFast(){...} //Huh?
}

Compliant Solution

public class Car{

  private DriveTrain drive;

  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drive() {...}  // field visibility reduced
}

public class MyCar extends Car{
  @Override
  public void tearDown(){...}

  public void drivefast(){...}

  public void driveReallyFast(){...}

}

Shared coding conventions allow teams to collaborate efficiently. This rule checks that all constant names match a provided regular expression.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default regular expression ^[A-Z][A-Z0-9]*(_[A-Z0-9]+)*$:

public class MyClass {
  public static final int first = 1;
}

public enum MyEnum {
  first;
}

Compliant Solution

public class MyClass {
  public static final int FIRST = 1;
}

public enum MyEnum {
  FIRST;
}

There are several reasons for a method not to have a method body:

• It is an unintentional omission, and should be fixed to prevent an unexpected behavior in production.
• It is not yet, or never will be, supported. In this case an UnsupportedOperationException should be thrown.
• The method is an intentionally-blank override. In this case a nested comment should explain the reason for the blank override.

Noncompliant Code Example

public void doSomething() {
}

public void doSomethingElse() {
}

Compliant Solution

@Override
public void doSomething() {
  // Do nothing because of X and Y.
}

@Override
public void doSomethingElse() {
  throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}

Exceptions

Default (no-argument) constructors are ignored when there are other constructors in the class, as are empty methods in abstract classes.

public abstract class Animal {
  void speak() {  // default implementation ignored
  }
}

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity