...69939c84cd69cd/src/test/resources/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/coding/InputFinalLocalVariable.java#L134 should be declared final.

FinalLocalVariableCheck.java is not checking for this variable (because it is not checking for FOR_EACH_CLAUSE variable). following is the line of code:

https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/FinalLocalVariableCheck.java#L112

so, I remove this line. as there is not any conflict with removing this line.

now there are many places where FOR_EACH_CLAUSE variable is not declared final in source code. so I changed it.

The upcoming Java 8 has a new language syntax that Checkstyle needs to support. The developer preview is quite stable and language syntax changes are not expected.

Besides that, the new language features might be an opportunity for new checks.

From RomanIvanov: please do "1 question" survey about Java8 support, without registration - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MNFHYSJ

Partially Resolves #7504: New Check UnusedLocalVariable

Diff Regression config: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Vyom-Yadav/98dceb63a79f4833e85fff9b2e1464a6/raw/95bad71f854a80ad29120a6bfb7bbd63c4eacded/my_checks.xml

Diff Regression patch config: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Vyom-Yadav/273327b9c6cd6963b7dade792bc2c9c2/raw/2e98681b13d1f68e04bbfa10a18936c9851ea192/patch_config.xml

Final Report: ~https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/21790c2_2021071214/reports/diff/index.html~ https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/e683dd9_2022092457/reports/diff/index.html

Diff between above mentioned reports(clean) - https://vyom-yadav.github.io/DiffReport/diffUnusedLocal/

Diff report for FullIdent(Clean) : https://vyom-yadav.github.io/DiffReport/diffFullIdent/

Resolves #3203 : Added new property enforceWhitespaceAroundArrayInit Diff Regression projects: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Vyom-Yadav/91807e6244cff60698d9e33e32ba2d51/raw/85355576c05c80e8b08752a62ba3a4076909d266/projects-to-test-on.properties Diff Regression config: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Vyom-Yadav/98dceb63a79f4833e85fff9b2e1464a6/raw/f3e3a82e4b7398f429bf0d754e5f1c277e1cdfd3/my_checks.xml Diff Regression patch config: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Vyom-Yadav/273327b9c6cd6963b7dade792bc2c9c2/raw/ca865fbe53cf6cf5dcd08bed8550c3f69d704d32/patch_config.xml Changes proposed for WhitespaceAroundCheck Adding new property enforceWhitespaceAroundArrayInit Created new UT and its input file InputWhitespaceAroundArrayInitWithProperty

Fixes #9010

Diff Regression config: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anhminhtran235/0f018525afcd2a5b669e7ab6abfc2b06/raw/cfbbff30ec48f4c502392ef64868e5476b5df6a2/config.xml Diff Regression projects: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anhminhtran235/2da94f96d35ab9471624c5b6c4421c66/raw/82b014453ca421085199b4635f6a13c26a62941d/projects-to-test-on.properties

This is a first pass for lambda support in the indentation check. All unit and integration tests pass. The test case is based on the test case in this branch: https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/compare/master...pirat9600q:IndentationCheck_issue281. Not all cases will be covered in this commit, but at least it's a start. I ran checkstyle against a codebase I'm working on and all the lambda related warnings disappear with this commit.

Also see #281.

Issue #4022

Some Test cases borrowed from a comment in #3775

Behavioral Changes:

1. This, This, and This (column '9') are now violations

2. This is no more a violation

3. All the MSG_KEY_LINE_NEW in errors replaced by MSG_KEY_LINE_ALONE

DO NOTE:

Unlike to what was mentioned in the comments in Issue 3775, this results in violation for both option=ALONE and option=ALONE_OR_SINGLELINE

(Java 8 - sabaka gsoc branch)

Indentation properties don't seem to be applied properly to lambdas. For example, if I change indentation to 2, with:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE module PUBLIC
    "-//Puppy Crawl//DTD Check Configuration 1.3//EN"
    "http://www.puppycrawl.com/dtds/configuration_1_3.dtd">
<module name="Checker">
  <module name="TreeWalker">
    <module name="Indentation">
      <property name="caseIndent" value="0"/>
      <property name="basicOffset" value="2"/>
      <property name="braceAdjustment" value="0"/>
   </module>
  </module>
</module>

It complains for the following code:

public class A {
  void function(Runnable x) {
    Runnable r = () -> {
      x.run();
      x.run();
    };
  }
}

wanting lambda to be 4 spaces indented:

block child at indentation level 6 not at correct indentation, 8 block child at indentation level 6 not at correct indentation, 8 block rcurly at indentation level 4 not at correct indentation, 6

This is with reference to the Issue: #7619 .

I have updated examples given in the following files:

1. src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/whitespace/EmptyLineSeparatorCheck.java
2. src/xdocs/config_whitespace.xml

After making the necessary changes, mvn clean verify passed without test failures.

...e #61

According to #61

Added option which allows final fields to be public for supporting style of immutable classes, added UT and corresponding input, extended javadoc/xdoc

According to #333

Not a lot of stuff was here http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javaguide.html#s4.8.6.1-block-comment-style

But Check controls the indentation inside comments.

Mutations: https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/config/pitest-suppressions/pitest-sizes-suppressions.xml

This issue will resolve the remaining suppression and remove the entire file. POM needs to be updated as well.

Mutations: https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/config/pitest-suppressions/pitest-annotation-suppressions.xml

This issue will resolve the remaining suppression and remove the entire file. POM is not at 100% for this profile, so the profile needs to be updated.

This is blocked by https://github.com/hcoles/pitest/issues/1137 as all the suppressions are basically false positives and cannot be resolved.

Issue #12587

https://checkstyle.org/config_modifier.html#RedundantModifier_Properties

Report: http://rveach.no-ip.org/checkstyle/regression/322/ No differences.

The old code is more a minor speed up in processing time and we don't lose much by removing it.

The method is processMethods and the AST given to it is always a METHOD_DEF. Usually we go 1 up on this before starting the loop, so it never starts with METHOD_DEF. However, even if it does start with METHOD_DEF all the cases inside the loop are not METHOD_DEF, so it goes straight to the last case which is the same the code we are removing, which is go up 1 parent.

Thus, its the same exact processing, except it takes a few more condition checks to realize this. It isn't a big jump in processing time, so I am ok to just remove the impacted code.

If we care about fixing this so processing time isn't increased (we are talking 4 extra condition checks comparing integers), then the only way is to either keep the suppression or I believe we can use reflection to create a test and kill the mutation the only way possible (direct calling the method).

Mutations: https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/config/pitest-suppressions/pitest-modifier-suppressions.xml

This issue will resolve the remaining suppression and remove the entire file. POM is already at 100% for this profile.

identified at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/pull/12322#discussion_r1061072126

code:

protected final void verifyWithInlineConfigParser(String filePath, String... expected)
            throws Exception {
        final TestInputConfiguration testInputConfiguration =
                InlineConfigParser.parse(filePath);
        final DefaultConfiguration parsedConfig =
                testInputConfiguration.createConfiguration();
        verifyViolations(parsedConfig, filePath, testInputConfiguration.getViolations());
        verify(parsedConfig, filePath, expected);
    }

does parsing and execution of Check twice. It was done on purpose at the begining of project on migration to new testing model. as now we are in final stages of migration completion, we see weirdness of design more acute. We need to finish migration to new model. After resolving https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/issues/11214 we need to refactor such verify methods to minimize execution of Check.