Skip to content

Consider using ExplicitInitialization checkstyle rule #45168

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
philwebb opened this issue Apr 11, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

Consider using ExplicitInitialization checkstyle rule #45168

philwebb opened this issue Apr 11, 2025 · 1 comment
Labels
type: task A general task
Milestone
4.x

Comments

@philwebb
Copy link
Member

See #45165 and the comment from @nosan

I am wondering if this could be addressed by using a Checkstyle rule such as ExplicitInitialization to enforce avoiding explicit initialization of primitives with their default values.
@philwebb philwebb added status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged for: team-meeting An issue we'd like to discuss as a team to make progress labels Apr 11, 2025
@philwebb philwebb mentioned this issue Apr 11, 2025
Closed
@philwebb
Copy link
Member Author

philwebb commented May 7, 2025

We discussed this and we'd like to add the rule at some point.

@philwebb philwebb added type: enhancement A general enhancement and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged for: team-meeting An issue we'd like to discuss as a team to make progress labels May 7, 2025
@philwebb philwebb added this to the 4.x milestone May 7, 2025
@philwebb philwebb added type: task A general task and removed type: enhancement A general enhancement labels May 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
type: task A general task
Projects
None yet
Milestone
4.x
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@philwebb