29 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
29 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
|
=== On 2014-10-08T18:10:47Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~nicolas.peru] to what degree do we see/pay attention to "run once" annotations during analysis, e.g. @PostConstruct?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-10-22T19:14:36Z Nicolas Peru Wrote:
|
||
|
|
At the moment : none.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So this rule won't detect that your random object is initialized in an init method.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It might makes more sense to actually detect Random local variables.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-10-22T19:40:32Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~nicolas.peru] you mean local ``++Random++`` variables, right? :-)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(I did actually have to read that twice & note the capital letter to understand your meaning :-) )
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I'd say that as written, this rule is about local ``++Random++``s (did you assign it back to me because you don't agree?), but I was hoping to be able to make it smarter. Oh well.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2018-08-15T18:28:35Z Nicolas Harraudeau Wrote:
|
||
|
|
This RSPEC is for now limited to detecting local variables of type ``++java.util.Random++``.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It could later cover cases where the Random object is not even assigned:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
----
|
||
|
|
(new Random()).nextInt()
|
||
|
|
----
|
||
|
|
|