sebthom/jstuff

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.

Synchronizing on a class field synchronizes not on the field itself, but on the object assigned to it. So synchronizing on a non-final field makes it possible for the field's value to change while a thread is in a block synchronized on the old value. That would allow a second thread, synchronized on the new value, to enter the block at the same time.

The story is very similar for synchronizing on parameters; two different threads running the method in parallel could pass two different object instances in to the method as parameters, completely undermining the synchronization.

Noncompliant Code Example

private String color = "red";

private void doSomething(){
  synchronized(color) {  // Noncompliant; lock is actually on object instance "red" referred to by the color variable
    //...
    color = "green"; // other threads now allowed into this block
    // ...
  }
  synchronized(new Object()) { // Noncompliant this is a no-op.
     // ...
  }
}

Compliant Solution

private String color = "red";
private final Object lockObj = new Object();

private void doSomething(){
  synchronized(lockObj) {
    //...
    color = "green";
    // ...
  }
}

See

• MITRE, CWE-412 - Unrestricted Externally Accessible Lock
• MITRE, CWE-413 - Improper Resource Locking
• CERT, LCK00-J. - Use private final lock objects to synchronize classes that may interact with untrusted code

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();

}

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

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

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.

If a boolean expression doesn't change the evaluation of the condition, then it is entirely unnecessary, and can be removed. If it is gratuitous because it does not match the programmer's intent, then it's a bug and the expression should be fixed.

Noncompliant Code Example

a = true;
if (a) { // Noncompliant
  doSomething();
}

if (b && a) { // Noncompliant; "a" is always "true"
  doSomething();
}

if (c || !a) { // Noncompliant; "!a" is always "false"
  doSomething();
}

Compliant Solution

a = true;
if (foo(a)) {
  doSomething();
}

if (b) {
  doSomething();
}

if (c) {
  doSomething();
}

See

• MITRE, CWE-571 - Expression is Always True
• MITRE, CWE-570 - Expression is Always False

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

Calling System.gc() or Runtime.getRuntime().gc() is a bad idea for a simple reason: there is no way to know exactly what will be done under the hood by the JVM because the behavior will depend on its vendor, version and options:

• Will the whole application be frozen during the call?
• Is the -XX:DisableExplicitGC option activated?
• Will the JVM simply ignore the call?
• ...

Like for System.gc(), there is no reason to manually call runFinalization() to force the call of finalization methods of any objects pending finalization.

An application relying on these unpredictable methods is also unpredictable and therefore broken. The task of running the garbage collector and calling finalize() methods should be left exclusively to the JVM.

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

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

Utility classes, which are collections of static members, are not meant to be instantiated. Even abstract utility classes, which can be extended, should not have public constructors.

Java adds an implicit public constructor to every class which does not define at least one explicitly. Hence, at least one non-public constructor should be defined.

Noncompliant Code Example

class StringUtils { // Noncompliant

  public static String concatenate(String s1, String s2) {
    return s1 + s2;
  }

}

Compliant Solution

class StringUtils { // Compliant

  private StringUtils() {
    throw new IllegalStateException("Utility class");
  }

  public static String concatenate(String s1, String s2) {
    return s1 + s2;
  }

}

Exceptions

When class contains public static void main(String[] args) method it is not considered as utility class and will be ignored by this rule.

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

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.

The transitive property says that if a == b and b == c, then a == c. In such cases, there's no point in assigning a to c or vice versa because they're already equivalent.

This rule raises an issue when an assignment is useless because the assigned-to variable already holds the value on all execution paths.

Noncompliant Code Example

a = b;
c = a;
b = c; // Noncompliant: c and b are already the same

Compliant Solution

a = b;
c = a;

The transitive property says that if a == b and b == c, then a == c. In such cases, there's no point in assigning a to c or vice versa because they're already equivalent.

This rule raises an issue when an assignment is useless because the assigned-to variable already holds the value on all execution paths.

Noncompliant Code Example

a = b;
c = a;
b = c; // Noncompliant: c and b are already the same

Compliant Solution

a = b;
c = a;

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.

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