sebthom/jstuff

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, and that's the case with nested ternary operations. Nesting ternary operators results in the kind of code that may seem clear as day when you write it, but six months later will leave maintainers (or worse - future you) scratching their heads and cursing.

Instead, err on the side of clarity, and use another line to express the nested operation as a separate statement.

Noncompliant Code Example

public String getReadableStatus(Job j) {
  return j.isRunning() ? "Running" : j.hasErrors() ? "Failed" : "Succeeded";  // Noncompliant
}

Compliant Solution

public String getReadableStatus(Job j) {
  if (j.isRunning()) {
    return "Running";
  }
  return j.hasErrors() ? "Failed" : "Succeeded";
}

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
  }
}

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

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.

When logging a message there are several important requirements which must be fulfilled:

• The user must be able to easily retrieve the logs
• The format of all logged message must be uniform to allow the user to easily read the log
• Logged data must actually be recorded
• Sensitive data must only be logged securely

If a program directly writes to the standard outputs, there is absolutely no way to comply with those requirements. That's why defining and using a dedicated logger is highly recommended.

Noncompliant Code Example

System.out.println("My Message");  // Noncompliant

Compliant Solution

logger.log("My Message");

See

• CERT, ERR02-J. - Prevent exceptions while logging data

InterruptedExceptions should never be ignored in the code, and simply logging the exception counts in this case as "ignoring". The throwing of the InterruptedException clears the interrupted state of the Thread, so if the exception is not handled properly the fact that the thread was interrupted will be lost. Instead, InterruptedExceptions should either be rethrown - immediately or after cleaning up the method's state - or the thread should be re-interrupted by calling Thread.interrupt() even if this is supposed to be a single-threaded application. Any other course of action risks delaying thread shutdown and loses the information that the thread was interrupted - probably without finishing its task.

Similarly, the ThreadDeath exception should also be propagated. According to its JavaDoc:

If ThreadDeath is caught by a method, it is important that it be rethrown so that the thread actually dies.

Noncompliant Code Example

public void run () {
  try {
    while (true) {
      // do stuff
    }
  }catch (InterruptedException e) { // Noncompliant; logging is not enough
    LOGGER.log(Level.WARN, "Interrupted!", e);
  }
}

Compliant Solution

public void run () {
  try {
    while (true) {
      // do stuff
    }
  }catch (InterruptedException e) {
    LOGGER.log(Level.WARN, "Interrupted!", e);
    // Restore interrupted state...
    Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
  }
}

See

• MITRE, CWE-391 - Unchecked Error Condition
• Dealing with InterruptedException

ThreadLocal variables are supposed to be garbage collected once the holding thread is no longer alive. Memory leaks can occur when holding threads are re-used which is the case on application servers using pool of threads.

To avoid such problems, it is recommended to always clean up ThreadLocal variables using the remove() method to remove the current thread’s value for the ThreadLocal variable.

In addition, calling set(null) to remove the value might keep the reference to this pointer in the map, which can cause memory leak in some scenarios. Using remove is safer to avoid this issue.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class ThreadLocalUserSession implements UserSession {

  private static final ThreadLocal<UserSession> DELEGATE = new ThreadLocal<>();

  public UserSession get() {
    UserSession session = DELEGATE.get();
    if (session != null) {
      return session;
    }
    throw new UnauthorizedException("User is not authenticated");
  }

  public void set(UserSession session) {
    DELEGATE.set(session);
  }

   public void incorrectCleanup() {
     DELEGATE.set(null); // Noncompliant
   }

  // some other methods without a call to DELEGATE.remove()
}

Compliant Solution

public class ThreadLocalUserSession implements UserSession {

  private static final ThreadLocal<UserSession> DELEGATE = new ThreadLocal<>();

  public UserSession get() {
    UserSession session = DELEGATE.get();
    if (session != null) {
      return session;
    }
    throw new UnauthorizedException("User is not authenticated");
  }

  public void set(UserSession session) {
    DELEGATE.set(session);
  }

  public void unload() {
    DELEGATE.remove(); // Compliant
  }

  // ...
}

Exceptions

Rule will not detect non-private ThreadLocal variables, because remove() can be called from another class.

See

• Understanding Memory Leaks in Java

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.

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

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
  }
}

Fields in a Serializable class must themselves be either Serializable or transient even if the class is never explicitly serialized or deserialized. For instance, under load, most J2EE application frameworks flush objects to disk, and an allegedly Serializable object with non-transient, non-serializable data members could cause program crashes, and open the door to attackers. In general a Serializable class is expected to fulfil its contract and not have an unexpected behaviour when an instance is serialized.

This rule raises an issue on non-Serializable fields, and on collection fields when they are not private (because they could be assigned non-Serializable values externally), and when they are assigned non-Serializable types within the class.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Address {
  //...
}

public class Person implements Serializable {
  private static final long serialVersionUID = 1905122041950251207L;

  private String name;
  private Address address;  // Noncompliant; Address isn't serializable
}

Compliant Solution

public class Address implements Serializable {
  private static final long serialVersionUID = 2405172041950251807L;
}

public class Person implements Serializable {
  private static final long serialVersionUID = 1905122041950251207L;

  private String name;
  private Address address;
}

Exceptions

The alternative to making all members serializable or transient is to implement special methods which take on the responsibility of properly serializing and de-serializing the object. This rule ignores classes which implement the following methods:

 private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream out)
     throws IOException
 private void readObject(java.io.ObjectInputStream in)
     throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException;

See

• MITRE, CWE-594 - Saving Unserializable Objects to Disk
• Oracle Java 6, Serializable
• Oracle Java 7, Serializable

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

Deprecation should be marked with both the @Deprecated annotation and @deprecated Javadoc tag. The annotation enables tools such as IDEs to warn about referencing deprecated elements, and the tag can be used to explain when it was deprecated, why, and how references should be refactored.

Further, Java 9 adds two additional arguments to the annotation:

• since allows you to describe when the deprecation took place
• forRemoval, indicates whether the deprecated element will be removed at some future date

If your compile level is Java 9 or higher, you should be using one or both of these arguments.

Noncompliant Code Example

class MyClass {

  @Deprecated
  public void foo1() {
  }

  /**
    * @deprecated
    */
  public void foo2() {    // Noncompliant
  }

}

Compliant Solution

class MyClass {

  /**
    * @deprecated (when, why, refactoring advice...)
    */
  @Deprecated
  public void foo1() {
  }

  /**
    * Java >= 9
    * @deprecated (when, why, refactoring advice...)
    */
  @Deprecated(since="5.1")
  public void foo2() {
  }

  /**
    * Java >= 9
    * @deprecated (when, why, refactoring advice...)
    */
  @Deprecated(since="4.2", forRemoval=true)
  public void foo3() {
  }

}

Exceptions

The members and methods of a deprecated class or interface are ignored by this rule. The classes and interfaces themselves are still subject to it.

/**
 * @deprecated (when, why, etc...)
 */
@Deprecated
class Qix  {

  public void foo() {} // Compliant; class is deprecated

}

/**
 * @deprecated (when, why, etc...)
 */
@Deprecated
interface Plop {

  void bar();

}

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.

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