Hi,
On 6.11.15 10:03 , [email protected] wrote:
Author: angela
Date: Fri Nov 6 10:03:03 2015
New Revision: 1712931
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1712931&view=rev
Log:
OAK-3593 : improvements to plugins/tree
Modified:
jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java?rev=1712931&r1=1712930&r2=1712931&view=diff
==============================================================================
---
jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java
(original)
+++
jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java
Fri Nov 6 10:03:03 2015
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
protected void buildPath(@Nonnull StringBuilder sb) {
AbstractTree parent = getParentOrNull();
if (parent != null) {
- parent.buildPath(checkNotNull(sb));
+ parent.buildPath(sb);
sb.append('/').append(getName());
}
I don't think those null check are redundant here and I would like to
have them back. The @Nonnull annotation does some rather week static
analysis, which is helpful but by no means complete. The missing null
check easily makes a API usage error look like an implementation error
thus causing bogus bug reports.
Michael