It is slightly different, but here is a case I recently found.
List<VersionTag> versionTags = versions.getVersionTags();
This method is internal though.
public List<VersionTag> getVersionTags() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(this.versionTags);
}
Thanks,
Mark
> On May 8, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Mark Hanson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How does everyone feel about situations involving raw types?
>
> Such as public interface A is returning Region and not Region<K,V> is that an
> acceptable suppression?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>> On May 8, 2020, at 1:20 PM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, but the following (inside tests) does not work in all cases, i.e.
>>
>> Region<String, String> region...
>>
>> Particularly if "region" is passed to a method with a different type
>> signature.
>>
>> I am trying to find/think of the situation I encounter from time to time,
>> even when I use the *wildcard* signature (i.e. Region<?, ?>), but cannot
>> currently find it (*#ugh*).
>>
>> Anyway, the point is, if the test is really not concerned with the type of
>> values (*keys*, *values*) being stored in the mock *Region* then rawtypes (or
>> sometimes Region<?, ?>) are useful in some cases since the point of the
>> test is not about the data but perhaps about *Region* configuration in
>> general, so adding types detracts (adds undue noise) to the code under test
>> (IMO).
>>
>> It depends and is subjective.
>>
>> I agree, though, in general, @SuppressWarnings should be kept to a minimum
>> and used only when necessary.
>>
>> -j
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:09 PM Kirk Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually there is an alternative to using @SuppressWarnings for Mockito
>>> mocks:
>>>
>>> Region<String, String> region = cast(mock(Region.class));
>>>
>>> private static <T> T cast(Object object) {
>>> return (T) object;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd prefer to see warnings or workarounds like above than see
>>> lots of @SuppressWarnings littered throughout our code base. I think it's a
>>> smell of bad code.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:44 PM Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 2020, at 12:41 PM, Donal Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a consensus on what constitutes a benign warning? I think the
>>>> only
>>>>> times I use @SuppressWarnings is in parameterized tests to suppress the
>>>>> unused method warning for the parameters method, or for unchecked
>>> casts,
>>>> as
>>>>> below:
>>>>>
>>>>> PartitionedRegion detailRegion1 = mock(PartitionedRegion.class);
>>>>> when(cache.getRegion(regionPath1)).thenReturn(detailRegion1);
>>>>>
>>>>> where the thenReturn() would complain, since it's expecting to return a
>>>>> Region<Object, Object>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would these be considered things that could safely just be ignored (and
>>>> so
>>>>> for which I can turn off inspection), or is the use of
>>> @SuppressWarnings
>>>>> here warranted?
>>>>
>>>> This is a legitimate suppression. There is no other way to correct the
>>>> dysfunctional nature of Java Generics than to @SuppressWarnings. In this
>>>> case though only that statement should be suppressed.
>>>>
>>>> -Jake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -John
>> Spring Data Team
>
