-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 692
SONARJAVA-4634 Test for duplicates in credential method json file #5132
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was collision because of wildcard uses, which could have ended up in FPs.
629a216
to
9799aad
Compare
To ensure full coverage of the changes.
|
@@ -7438,7 +7438,7 @@ | |||
{"cls":"redis.clients.jedis.JedisSentinelPool","name":"JedisSentinelPool","args":["java.lang.String","java.util.Set","*","int","java.lang.String","int","java.lang.String"],"indices":[4]}, | |||
{"cls":"redis.clients.jedis.JedisSentinelPool","name":"JedisSentinelPool","args":["java.lang.String","java.util.Set","*","int","java.lang.String","java.lang.String","int"],"indices":[5]}, | |||
{"cls":"redis.clients.jedis.JedisSentinelPool","name":"JedisSentinelPool","args":["java.lang.String","java.util.Set","*","int","java.lang.String","java.lang.String","int","java.lang.String"],"indices":[5]}, | |||
{"cls":"redis.clients.jedis.JedisSentinelPool","name":"JedisSentinelPool","args":["java.lang.String","java.util.Set","*","java.lang.String"],"indices":[3]}, | |||
{"cls":"redis.clients.jedis.JedisSentinelPool","name":"JedisSentinelPool","args":["java.lang.String","java.util.Set","org.apache.commons.pool2.impl.GenericObjectPoolConfig","java.lang.String"],"indices":[3]}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the entry with *
that was removed here was covering both line 7441 and line 7443, maybe instead of replacing this entry we could remove line 7443 as it's redundant?
I'm not sure if the intent of these entries is to prevent or to fix, the *
approach would cover possible future new signatures, while being more specific with the naming allows to intervene only when needed.
I think we might want an opinion from Hendrik here, as he's the main contributor to this list
SONARJAVA-4634
Adding a test for duplicated entries found a few cases where we could have false positives because of wildcard usage.