done kind regards angela On 06/11/15 12:14, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hi Angela, > >That's right. Probably a leftover from when we factored out >AbstractTree. We should probably move the null checks up to the public >facing tree implementations. > >Michael > >On 6.11.15 10:40 , Angela Schreiber wrote: >> hi michael >> >> but it's an internal method in an internal class and i don't see >> how an API consumer can overwrite it... that's why the check really >> looks redundant to me in particular as it would equally result in an >>NPE, >> which looks bad anyway. >> >> kind regards >> angela >> >> On 06/11/15 11:31, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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/p >>>>lu >>>> gins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java >>>> URL: >>>> >>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/jav >>>>a/ >>>> >>>>org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java?rev=17129 >>>>31 >>>> &r1=1712930&r2=1712931&view=diff >>>> >>>> >>>>======================================================================= >>>>== >>>> ===== >>>> --- >>>> >>>>jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/p >>>>lu >>>> gins/tree/impl/AbstractTree.java (original) >>>> +++ >>>> >>>>jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/p >>>>lu >>>> gins/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 >>
