To simplify rule programming and produce more robust and maintainable programming rules, see the following best practice tips.
BaseNodeinterface whenever possible
Never use implementation node classes, like the generic
Node interface or
SimpleNode class generated by the parser generator (e.g. JavaCC). The reason is obvious: An AST tree may have nodes generated by different parsers (heterogeneous tree).
BaseNode is the common denominator, all AST nodes implement this interface. If not, your rule may produce a
ClassCastException when traversing AST nodes generated by the parsers for embedded languages (like SQL nodes in the COBOL AST tree, when EXEC SQL sentences are parsed). To avoid problems, and implement rules less dependent on potential grammar changes, it is advisable to use, when possible, the
If you need to check for the language the node belongs to, use
BaseNode.getLanguage(). This is a simple way of determining which language the node belongs to.
TreeNode decorator is a powerful AST tree navigation helper. You can traverse trees rooted at a certain
BaseNode using a
NodeVisitor (recursively or traversing the node and its immediate children), fetch for nodes that match a certain condition (using
NodePredicate), or traverse the siblings of a certain node. See the javadoc for
BaseTree for further information.
You may add utility methods if you need certain reusable extraction operations, but in this case, use the
TreeNode facilities to implement such methods, avoiding usage of the specific AST implementation classes, as mentioned in the previous tip.
Rules should be, if possible, "stateless", with no side-effects. Never add instance variables (like a node list) that depend on the nodes of the currently processed file. If you do not obey this simple rule, your rule must clean-up such artificial state before processing the next source input, increasing memory footprint and opening the opportunity for all kinds of errors (when a list of nodes is not cleaned-up, the rule will see in the list nodes belonging to previous input sources, producing bugs difficult to resolve).
Exceptions to this rule are:
initialize()method, that will be invoked by the framework at analysis startup, when the rule should prepare complex configuration items (like pre-compiling regular expressions to be used in the
visit()method). Remember that, for simple properties, this is not necessary (
getProperty()methods provide access to rule parameters). For example, a numeric threshold does not need to be an instance variable.
visit()method implement the model building phase, and the
postProcess()rule method will be used to check for the intended conditions in the model. But remember that local rules (rules that inspect a single input source at a time) are the most usual pattern for static analysis.
For naming/format convention rules, when a line does not match the convention, a
RuleViolation could be emitted. The problem with this approach is that it could produce a rule violations storm, when hundreds or thousands of violations are registered in the violations report, making the vision on the most important issues to fix first more difficult. So it is better to decide before if the more conservative approach of emitting a single violation per file, to tell programmers which files do not follow the convention, could fit the bill avoiding the violations storm.
It depends on the importance of the convention. Obviously emitting a violation for all lines tells the programmer where each violation can be found, but at the cost of contaminating both the violations report and the confidence factors, hiding other rules (like potential bugs) that should be visible. So as a trade-off, for such convention-checking rules, the single violation per file approach is better.
The purpose of the AST is to present a source code structure, in a way that simplifies structural checks (as the AST eliminates issues like the exact source code format). So if the AST contains the needed information for the rule revision, use it.
Obviously, there are certain kind of rules that do need access to the source code: most parsers discard comments (comments are not seen in the AST) and, due to grammar limitations, even essential source code is not available in the image field of the AST nodes. When this happens, use the
FileContents interface as follows:
FileContents contents = ctx.getOriginalFileContents(); // Or ctx.getTransformedFileContents() String code = contents.getContent(); // To process all code content String codeLines = contents.getLines(); // To process all lines String line = contents.getLine( node.getBeginLine()-1 ); // Direct access to the code line for node ... put your checks on code, codeLines or line here ...
When you find yourself creating complicated regular expressions to fetch code elements. Think twice if the AST tree provides the needed information.
The static analysis framework provides a
If your rule code is coupled too much with the grammar artifacts (node classes, node and token images, node hierarchies for language constructs, etc.), then changes in the grammar and generated parser will produce AST trees that will break your rules. Of course, this is easy to say, but very difficult to follow. Rules usually need to locate nodes that match grammar rules. But try to limit such dependencies on underlying grammar as much as possible.
The next section explains some anti-patterns, that you could follow if you want your rules to be unmaintainable, break for difficult-to-track causes, and consume lots of memory and lead to an
As said before, local rules should not have side-effects between different source code inputs. Never use
RuleContext as an instance parameter, pass it as method parameter from the
visit() method to the helper methods that need it. And never collect (in local rules) lists of AST nodes: use local variables instead (that will be garbage collected quickly when the variable is out of scope, without the need to clear collections at the end of the visit method), and pass them to the utility method. Or better, use AST navigation facilities provided by
TreeNode, to process nodes of interest locally, and avoid creating node collections and iterating over such collections later. Your code will be crystal-clear.
In the past, we have seen many rule programmers following this anti-pattern, copying&pasting many code blocks that use unnecessary instance variables. This anti-pattern should be never followed (but remember that rule configuration and global model data are exceptions to the avoid artificial state rule).
Once again, never read source files. Use
FileContents to access source code contents in the easiest way.
If every rule of N reads the file, and you have M files, your I/O rate will be N*M (N times more than the M rate that the static analyzer itself needs).
If you have 1,000 rules and 1,000 input sources, you are reading files 1,000,000 times.
Your static analysis performance will crawl and take hours to complete. Your rules are intelligent, so to demonstrate how important they are, read files liberally, to demonstrate how much complexity your brain can manage.
Some things that do not add value to your code are:
If your rule purpose is not clearly documented in JavaDoc comments, and complex checks are not documented appropriately, your rule will not be maintainable. Make sure to document exceptions, put sample code with the kind of conditions detected by the rule, and so on.