Skip to content
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

MOE Sync 2020-02-10 #1511

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 11, 2020
Merged

MOE Sync 2020-02-10 #1511

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 11, 2020

Conversation

cpovirk
Copy link
Member

@cpovirk cpovirk commented Feb 11, 2020

This code has been reviewed and submitted internally. Feel free to discuss on
the PR, and we can submit follow-up changes as necessary.

Commits:

Ignore DSL.inline() in PreferJavaTimeOverload checker.

Fixes #1504

2b1d640

Fixes #1504

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=294228509
@cpovirk cpovirk merged commit 0bd4a0c into master Feb 11, 2020
@cpovirk cpovirk deleted the sync-master-2020/02/10 branch February 11, 2020 00:41
@@ -112,6 +112,7 @@

private static final Matcher<ExpressionTree> IGNORED_APIS =
anyOf(
staticMethod().onClass("org.jooq.impl.DSL").named("inline"),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Out of curiosity, any specific reason you didn't compare return types taking generics into account? (i.e. in this specific case, treating Param<Long> and Param<Instant> as different return types, such that DSL.inline(long) and DSL.inline(Instant) would no longer be considered overloads of each other)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

PreferJavaTimeOverload generates false positive with jOOQ DSL.inline()
4 participants