Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #793 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 63.38% 63.52% +0.14%
- Complexity 3376 3382 +6
=============================================
Files 314 314
Lines 15074 15072 -2
Branches 2557 2558 +1
=============================================
+ Hits 9555 9575 +20
+ Misses 4626 4604 -22
Partials 893 893 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| SootField f = (SootField) fieldIt.next(); | ||
| printer.newline(); | ||
| printer.handleIndent(); | ||
| printer.literal(f.getDeclaration()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need/use/want .getDeclaration() somewhere else? maybe we can remove it.. I mean its nice to have when needed - but I would not expect to find it and its basically just concatenating two SootField methods which I would do quickly myself before searching for getDeclaration() unless I stumbled over it already.
| printer.literal(f.getDeclaration()); | ||
| printer.literal(";"); | ||
| if (!f.getModifiers().isEmpty()) { | ||
| printer.literal(FieldModifier.toString(f.getModifiers())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Offtopic: FieldModifier.toString(...) already assumes valid Modifier combinations (theoretically its currently possible to assign public+private+protected modifier at the same time) - maybe we should implement a wrapper of EnumSet<...Modifier> to handle only valid combinations and implement toString there?
2 participants
fixes missed escaping + StmtPrinter.typeSignature() to adapt type printing