✨ Rule for @Async detection #164
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Juan Manuel Leflet Estrada <[email protected]>
rromannissen
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM for the moment. @jmle is there a way to label this so we come back to it once konveyor/analyzer-lsp#716 is implemented?
We can leave this rule's issue open and mention it in the RFE |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ideally we would want to look for methods that are annotated with
@Asyncand don't returnvoidorFuture, but it is not possible at the moment. We can look for methods that do return particular types, but not for methods that return "anything but a type". Also, negating the condition would only tell us that there are no methods that returnvoidorFuture, but that does not guarantee that there are more methods which do return something else.See #141