Where is this "// TODO BEFORE MERGE: (is null a good option here?)"
This some mark I usually do, I meant to fix it before I sent the commit :) On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Jiri Danek <[email protected]> wrote: > (two corrections, I noticed I did not wrote what I meant, previously) > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Jiri Danek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The mkstemp() thing is supposed to be an issue only with old glibc on >> Linux and on AIX and HP-UX. I googled out that there is a good way to set >> umask() for the process, because there is JVM running in it too... So >> probably ignore. > > > I meant to say "there is _not_ a good way" > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jiri Danek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, let me sent one more e-mail in this thread ;P Trying to evaluate >> what Coverity found, I opened some Jiras where I understood the problem and >> it seemed real, and marked the Coverity find as ignored if . > > > I meant to add "marked as ignored if I was reasonably sure that it is > intended". You can filter for this on the Coverity web. There were two > issues where it was obvious, and one where I think it is not worth fixing: > > 204 if (futureListener != null) { > 205 > // TODO BEFORE MERGE: (is null a good option here?) > > CID 1409858 (#1 of 1): Explicit null dereferenced (FORWARD_NULL) > var_deref_model: Passing null to operationComplete, which dereferences it. > (The virtual call resolves to io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel.1 > .operationComplete.) > 206 futureListener.operationComplete(null); > 207 } > > It fails the substitution principle (most of ChannelFutureListener > implementations that exist in Netty would fail with NPE there), but what I > found by searching in Intellij is that only null or a barebone > ChannelFutureListener that does work are ever passed there. To fix it, one > would have to implement proper instance of ChannelFuture to pass as > argument instead of that null, which would be 100 lines of essentially > fluff, and there would still be problem because the future needs to be able > to return non-null instance of Channel, of which there isn't any. I simply > cannot think of reasonable fix. And it seems to be working all right. Maybe > change the comment ;) > -- > Jiří Daněk -- Clebert Suconic
