Showing 105 of 110 total issues
Change the visibility of this constructor to "protected". Open
public CreatureMock(ServerMock server, UUID uuid)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Abstract classes should not have public constructors. Constructors of abstract classes can only be called in constructors of their subclasses. So
there is no point in making them public. The protected
modifier should be enough.
Noncompliant Code Example
public abstract class AbstractClass1 { public AbstractClass1 () { // Noncompliant, has public modifier // do something here } }
Compliant Solution
public abstract class AbstractClass2 { protected AbstractClass2 () { // do something here } }
Remove this "clone" implementation; use a copy constructor or copy factory instead. Open
public FireworkMetaMock clone()
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Many consider clone
and Cloneable
broken in Java, largely because the rules for overriding clone
are tricky
and difficult to get right, according to Joshua Bloch:
Object's clone method is very tricky. It's based on field copies, and it's "extra-linguistic." It creates an object without calling a constructor. There are no guarantees that it preserves the invariants established by the constructors. There have been lots of bugs over the years, both in and outside Sun, stemming from the fact that if you just call super.clone repeatedly up the chain until you have cloned an object, you have a shallow copy of the object. The clone generally shares state with the object being cloned. If that state is mutable, you don't have two independent objects. If you modify one, the other changes as well. And all of a sudden, you get random behavior.
A copy constructor or copy factory should be used instead.
This rule raises an issue when clone
is overridden, whether or not Cloneable
is implemented.
Noncompliant Code Example
public class MyClass { // ... public Object clone() { // Noncompliant //... } }
Compliant Solution
public class MyClass { // ... MyClass (MyClass source) { //... } }
See
See Also
- {rule:java:S2157} - "Cloneables" should implement "clone"
- {rule:java:S1182} - Classes that override "clone" should be "Cloneable" and call "super.clone()"
Remove this "clone" implementation; use a copy constructor or copy factory instead. Open
public SuspiciousStewMetaMock clone() {
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Many consider clone
and Cloneable
broken in Java, largely because the rules for overriding clone
are tricky
and difficult to get right, according to Joshua Bloch:
Object's clone method is very tricky. It's based on field copies, and it's "extra-linguistic." It creates an object without calling a constructor. There are no guarantees that it preserves the invariants established by the constructors. There have been lots of bugs over the years, both in and outside Sun, stemming from the fact that if you just call super.clone repeatedly up the chain until you have cloned an object, you have a shallow copy of the object. The clone generally shares state with the object being cloned. If that state is mutable, you don't have two independent objects. If you modify one, the other changes as well. And all of a sudden, you get random behavior.
A copy constructor or copy factory should be used instead.
This rule raises an issue when clone
is overridden, whether or not Cloneable
is implemented.
Noncompliant Code Example
public class MyClass { // ... public Object clone() { // Noncompliant //... } }
Compliant Solution
public class MyClass { // ... MyClass (MyClass source) { //... } }
See
See Also
- {rule:java:S2157} - "Cloneables" should implement "clone"
- {rule:java:S1182} - Classes that override "clone" should be "Cloneable" and call "super.clone()"
Change the visibility of this constructor to "protected". Open
public InventoryViewMock(HumanEntity player, String name, Inventory top, Inventory bottom, InventoryType type)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Abstract classes should not have public constructors. Constructors of abstract classes can only be called in constructors of their subclasses. So
there is no point in making them public. The protected
modifier should be enough.
Noncompliant Code Example
public abstract class AbstractClass1 { public AbstractClass1 () { // Noncompliant, has public modifier // do something here } }
Compliant Solution
public abstract class AbstractClass2 { protected AbstractClass2 () { // do something here } }
This accessibility bypass should be removed. Open
server.set(null, null);
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This rule raises an issue when reflection is used to change the visibility of a class, method or field, and when it is used to directly update a field value. Altering or bypassing the accessibility of classes, methods, or fields violates the encapsulation principle and could lead to run-time errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void makeItPublic(String methodName) throws NoSuchMethodException { this.getClass().getMethod(methodName).setAccessible(true); // Noncompliant } public void setItAnyway(String fieldName, int value) { this.getClass().getDeclaredField(fieldName).setInt(this, value); // Noncompliant; bypasses controls in setter }
See
- CERT, SEC05-J. - Do not use reflection to increase accessibility of classes, methods, or fields
Remove this "clone" implementation; use a copy constructor or copy factory instead. Open
public PotionMetaMock clone()
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Many consider clone
and Cloneable
broken in Java, largely because the rules for overriding clone
are tricky
and difficult to get right, according to Joshua Bloch:
Object's clone method is very tricky. It's based on field copies, and it's "extra-linguistic." It creates an object without calling a constructor. There are no guarantees that it preserves the invariants established by the constructors. There have been lots of bugs over the years, both in and outside Sun, stemming from the fact that if you just call super.clone repeatedly up the chain until you have cloned an object, you have a shallow copy of the object. The clone generally shares state with the object being cloned. If that state is mutable, you don't have two independent objects. If you modify one, the other changes as well. And all of a sudden, you get random behavior.
A copy constructor or copy factory should be used instead.
This rule raises an issue when clone
is overridden, whether or not Cloneable
is implemented.
Noncompliant Code Example
public class MyClass { // ... public Object clone() { // Noncompliant //... } }
Compliant Solution
public class MyClass { // ... MyClass (MyClass source) { //... } }
See
See Also
- {rule:java:S2157} - "Cloneables" should implement "clone"
- {rule:java:S1182} - Classes that override "clone" should be "Cloneable" and call "super.clone()"
Define and throw a dedicated exception instead of using a generic one. Open
throw new RuntimeException(e);
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Using such generic exceptions as Error
, RuntimeException
, Throwable
, and Exception
prevents
calling methods from handling true, system-generated exceptions differently than application-generated errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void foo(String bar) throws Throwable { // Noncompliant throw new RuntimeException("My Message"); // Noncompliant }
Compliant Solution
public void foo(String bar) { throw new MyOwnRuntimeException("My Message"); }
Exceptions
Generic exceptions in the signatures of overriding methods are ignored, because overriding method has to follow signature of the throw declaration in the superclass. The issue will be raised on superclass declaration of the method (or won't be raised at all if superclass is not part of the analysis).
@Override public void myMethod() throws Exception {...}
Generic exceptions are also ignored in the signatures of methods that make calls to methods that throw generic exceptions.
public void myOtherMethod throws Exception { doTheThing(); // this method throws Exception }
See
- MITRE, CWE-397 - Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception
- CERT, ERR07-J. - Do not throw RuntimeException, Exception, or Throwable
Add a private constructor to hide the implicit public one. Open
public class EnchantmentsMock
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Define and throw a dedicated exception instead of using a generic one. Open
throw new RuntimeException(e);
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Using such generic exceptions as Error
, RuntimeException
, Throwable
, and Exception
prevents
calling methods from handling true, system-generated exceptions differently than application-generated errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void foo(String bar) throws Throwable { // Noncompliant throw new RuntimeException("My Message"); // Noncompliant }
Compliant Solution
public void foo(String bar) { throw new MyOwnRuntimeException("My Message"); }
Exceptions
Generic exceptions in the signatures of overriding methods are ignored, because overriding method has to follow signature of the throw declaration in the superclass. The issue will be raised on superclass declaration of the method (or won't be raised at all if superclass is not part of the analysis).
@Override public void myMethod() throws Exception {...}
Generic exceptions are also ignored in the signatures of methods that make calls to methods that throw generic exceptions.
public void myOtherMethod throws Exception { doTheThing(); // this method throws Exception }
See
- MITRE, CWE-397 - Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception
- CERT, ERR07-J. - Do not throw RuntimeException, Exception, or Throwable
Use "java.nio.file.Files#delete" here for better messages on error conditions. Open
if (!directory.delete())
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
When java.io.File#delete
fails, this boolean
method simply returns false
with no indication of the cause. On
the other hand, when java.nio.file.Files#delete
fails, this void
method returns one of a series of exception types to better
indicate the cause of the failure. And since more information is generally better in a debugging situation, java.nio.file.Files#delete
is
the preferred option.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void cleanUp(Path path) { File file = new File(path); if (!file.delete()) { // Noncompliant //... } }
Compliant Solution
public void cleanUp(Path path) throws NoSuchFileException, DirectoryNotEmptyException, IOException { Files.delete(path); }
Add the missing @deprecated Javadoc tag. Open
public void setItemInHand(ItemStack stack)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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(); }
Define a constant instead of duplicating this literal "Not mocking" 4 times. Open
throw new IllegalStateException("Not mocking");
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Define and throw a dedicated exception instead of using a generic one. Open
throw new RuntimeException(e);
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Using such generic exceptions as Error
, RuntimeException
, Throwable
, and Exception
prevents
calling methods from handling true, system-generated exceptions differently than application-generated errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void foo(String bar) throws Throwable { // Noncompliant throw new RuntimeException("My Message"); // Noncompliant }
Compliant Solution
public void foo(String bar) { throw new MyOwnRuntimeException("My Message"); }
Exceptions
Generic exceptions in the signatures of overriding methods are ignored, because overriding method has to follow signature of the throw declaration in the superclass. The issue will be raised on superclass declaration of the method (or won't be raised at all if superclass is not part of the analysis).
@Override public void myMethod() throws Exception {...}
Generic exceptions are also ignored in the signatures of methods that make calls to methods that throw generic exceptions.
public void myOtherMethod throws Exception { doTheThing(); // this method throws Exception }
See
- MITRE, CWE-397 - Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception
- CERT, ERR07-J. - Do not throw RuntimeException, Exception, or Throwable
Add the missing @deprecated Javadoc tag. Open
public static void unload()
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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(); }
Define and throw a dedicated exception instead of using a generic one. Open
throw new RuntimeException("Out of names");
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Using such generic exceptions as Error
, RuntimeException
, Throwable
, and Exception
prevents
calling methods from handling true, system-generated exceptions differently than application-generated errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void foo(String bar) throws Throwable { // Noncompliant throw new RuntimeException("My Message"); // Noncompliant }
Compliant Solution
public void foo(String bar) { throw new MyOwnRuntimeException("My Message"); }
Exceptions
Generic exceptions in the signatures of overriding methods are ignored, because overriding method has to follow signature of the throw declaration in the superclass. The issue will be raised on superclass declaration of the method (or won't be raised at all if superclass is not part of the analysis).
@Override public void myMethod() throws Exception {...}
Generic exceptions are also ignored in the signatures of methods that make calls to methods that throw generic exceptions.
public void myOtherMethod throws Exception { doTheThing(); // this method throws Exception }
See
- MITRE, CWE-397 - Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception
- CERT, ERR07-J. - Do not throw RuntimeException, Exception, or Throwable
Remove this "clone" implementation; use a copy constructor or copy factory instead. Open
public LeatherArmorMetaMock clone()
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Many consider clone
and Cloneable
broken in Java, largely because the rules for overriding clone
are tricky
and difficult to get right, according to Joshua Bloch:
Object's clone method is very tricky. It's based on field copies, and it's "extra-linguistic." It creates an object without calling a constructor. There are no guarantees that it preserves the invariants established by the constructors. There have been lots of bugs over the years, both in and outside Sun, stemming from the fact that if you just call super.clone repeatedly up the chain until you have cloned an object, you have a shallow copy of the object. The clone generally shares state with the object being cloned. If that state is mutable, you don't have two independent objects. If you modify one, the other changes as well. And all of a sudden, you get random behavior.
A copy constructor or copy factory should be used instead.
This rule raises an issue when clone
is overridden, whether or not Cloneable
is implemented.
Noncompliant Code Example
public class MyClass { // ... public Object clone() { // Noncompliant //... } }
Compliant Solution
public class MyClass { // ... MyClass (MyClass source) { //... } }
See
See Also
- {rule:java:S2157} - "Cloneables" should implement "clone"
- {rule:java:S1182} - Classes that override "clone" should be "Cloneable" and call "super.clone()"
This accessibility update should be removed. Open
method.setAccessible(true);
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This rule raises an issue when reflection is used to change the visibility of a class, method or field, and when it is used to directly update a field value. Altering or bypassing the accessibility of classes, methods, or fields violates the encapsulation principle and could lead to run-time errors.
Noncompliant Code Example
public void makeItPublic(String methodName) throws NoSuchMethodException { this.getClass().getMethod(methodName).setAccessible(true); // Noncompliant } public void setItAnyway(String fieldName, int value) { this.getClass().getDeclaredField(fieldName).setInt(this, value); // Noncompliant; bypasses controls in setter }
See
- CERT, SEC05-J. - Do not use reflection to increase accessibility of classes, methods, or fields
Add the missing @deprecated Javadoc tag. Open
public void setData(MaterialData data)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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(); }
Add a private constructor to hide the implicit public one. Open
public final class PluginCommandUtils
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Add a private constructor to hide the implicit public one. Open
public final class JavaPluginUtils
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.