Re: Way to optimize this?
On Nov 6, 10:48 am, Noel <prosthetic_conscien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:10 am, laredotornado <laredotorn...@zipmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm using Java 1.5. My code checker (PMD plug-in, part of Eclipse
Galileo), is complaining about the line "Integer fileCount = null;" i=
n
the following ...
public Integer getVendorRequestFileDigestCount(final
YouthfulDriverVendor vendor,
=
final String
requestFileDigest) {
Integer fileCount = null;
final Session session = sessionFactory.openSession();
try {
fileCount = (Integer)
session. createCriteria(AddressRequestFi=
le.class)
.add(Restrictions.eq("requestFileDigest", requestFileDi=
gest))
.add(Restrictions.eq("vendor", vendor))
.add(Restrictions.gt("processingResult", 0))
.add(Restrictions.isNotNull("processingDate"))
.setProjection(Projections.rowCount()).uniqueResult();
} finally {
session.close();
}
return fileCount;
}
Integer fileCount = null;
try {
fileCount = ...;
} catch (...) {
fileCount = null;
} finally {
...
}
return fileCount;
Of course, it is advisable to minimize the scope of fileCount, so one
could instead do this (or a variation):
try {
Integer fileCount = ...;
return fileCount;
} catch (...) {
return null;
} finally {
...
}
But then your code checker may complain about having more than one
return statement in a method.
with the complaint, "Found 'DD' -- anomaly for 'fileCount', lines
123-126". Evidently, it doesn't like the fact that the value of the
variable "fileCount" changes. But I don't know how to rewrite this
code block to satisfy the code checker. Do you?
It's unfortunate than an application intended to improve clarity of
code emits unhelpful messages. I'm unfamiliar with this code checker,
but a cursory Google search turned up that this particular rule
belongs to its "Controversial" rule set (http://pmd.sourceforge.net/
rules/controversial.html).
PMD is mandated by our company so sadly I don't have control over the
decision to use it at this time. Noel, per your suggestion, the code
checker does complain about the return statement needing to be the
last line in the method when I switch to what you have, although I do
like how you've reduced the scope of the variable.
- Dave