Skip to content

SONARJAVA-6425 Support records in S1068 #5644

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

Open
tomasz-tylenda-sonarsource wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
+15 −2
Open

SONARJAVA-6425 Support records in S1068 #5644

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6a9f19a
Support records in S1068
tomasz-tylenda-sonarsource May 29, 2026
abb74a7
Non-private example
tomasz-tylenda-sonarsource May 29, 2026
706e616
Add USED case. Improve comment.
tomasz-tylenda-sonarsource May 29, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions java-checks-test-sources/default/src/main/java/checks/unused/UnusedPrivateFieldCheck.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -194,3 +194,16 @@ private void f() {
}
}

record MyRecord(int a) {
private static final int XXX = 3; // Noncompliant
// ^^^

// Non-private fields should not be reported.
static final int YYY = 4;

private static final int USED = 5;

int sum() {
return a + USED;
}
}
Comment on lines +197 to +209
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@gitar-bot gitar-bot Bot May 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Edge Case: Test missing: record instance field false positive coverage

The test only covers private static final fields in records. Records can also have explicitly declared private instance fields (though rare). More importantly, record components generate implicit private final fields (e.g., int a in record MyRecord(int a)). It would strengthen confidence to add a test verifying the rule does NOT flag record component fields as unused, since they are accessed via the implicit accessor method. For example:

record MyRecordCompliant(int a) {
  // 'a' should not be flagged
  private static final int USED = 1;
  int sum() { return a + USED; }
}

This would guard against future regressions if the AST representation changes.

Was this helpful? React with 👍 / 👎

4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions java-checks/src/main/java/org/sonar/java/checks/unused/UnusedPrivateFieldCheck.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ public class UnusedPrivateFieldCheck extends IssuableSubscriptionVisitor {

@Override
public List<Tree.Kind> nodesToVisit() {
return Arrays.asList(Tree.Kind.CLASS, Tree.Kind.METHOD, Tree.Kind.EXPRESSION_STATEMENT, Tree.Kind.IDENTIFIER);
return Arrays.asList(Tree.Kind.CLASS, Tree.Kind.RECORD, Tree.Kind.METHOD, Tree.Kind.EXPRESSION_STATEMENT, Tree.Kind.IDENTIFIER);
}

@Override
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ public void visitNode(Tree tree) {
case METHOD:
checkIfNativeMethod((MethodTree) tree);
break;
case CLASS:
case CLASS, RECORD:
classes.add((ClassTree) tree);
break;
case EXPRESSION_STATEMENT:
Expand Down
Loading