[www] Add nullability questions to analyzer FAQ.

llvm-svn: 279330
This commit is contained in:
Devin Coughlin 2016-08-19 22:04:45 +00:00
parent 0666179232
commit 0fb33f9690
1 changed files with 54 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ null?</a></li>
<li><a href="#unused_ivar">How do I tell the static analyzer that I don't care about a specific unused instance variable in Objective C?</a></li>
<li><a href="#unlocalized_string">How do I tell the static analyzer that I don't care about a specific unlocalized string?</a></li>
<li><a href="#dealloc_mrr">How do I tell the analyzer that my instance variable does not need to be released in -dealloc under Manual Retain/Release?</a></li>
<li><a href="#decide_nullability">How do I decide whether a method's return type should be _Nullable or _Nonnull?</a></li>
<li><a href="#nullability_intentional_violation">How do I tell the analyzer that I am intentionally violating nullability?</a></li>
<li><a href="#use_assert">The analyzer assumes that a loop body is never entered. How can I tell it that the loop body will be entered at least once?</a></li>
<li><a href="#suppress_issue">How can I suppress a specific analyzer warning?</a></li>
<li><a href="#exclude_code">How can I selectively exclude code the analyzer examines?</a></li>
@ -115,6 +117,58 @@ by either adding <tt>assert(_ivar == nil)</tt> or an explicit release
<tt>[_ivar release]</tt> (which will be a no-op when the variable is nil) in
-dealloc. </p>
<h4 id="decide_nullability" class="faq">Q: How do I decide whether a method's return type should be _Nullable or _Nonnull?</h4>
<p> Depending on the implementation of the method, this puts you in one of five situations:
<ol>
<li>You actually never return nil.</li>
<li>You do return nil sometimes, and callers are supposed to handle that. This
includes cases where your method is documented to return nil given certain
inputs.</li>
<li>You return nil based on some external condition (such as an out-of-memory
error), but the client can't do anything about it either.</li>
<li>You return nil only when the caller passes input documented to be invalid.
That means it's the client's fault.</li>
<li>You return nil in some totally undocumented case.</li>
</ol>
</p>
<p>In (1) you should annotate the method as returning a <tt>_Nonnull</tt>
object.</p>
<p>In (2) the method should be marked <tt>_Nullable.</tt></p>
<p>In (3) you should probably annotate the method <tt>_Nonnull</tt>. Why?
Because no callers will actually check for nil, given that they can't do
anything about the situation and don't know what went wrong. At this point
things have gone so poorly that there's basically no way to recover.</p>
<p>The least happy case is (4) because the resulting program will almost
certainly either crash or just silently do the wrong thing.
If this is a new method or you control the callers, you can use
<tt>NSParameterAssert()</tt> (or the equivalent) to check the precondition and
remove the nil return. But if you don't control the callers and they rely on
this behavior, you should return mark the method <tt>_Nonnull</tt> and return
nil <a href="#nullability_intentional_violation">cast to _Nonnull</a> anyway.
(Note that (4) doesn't apply in cases where the caller can't know they passed
bad parameters. For example,
<tt>+[NSData dataWithContentsOfFile:options:error:]</tt> will fail if the file
doesn't exist, but there's no way to check for that in advance. This means
you're really in (2).)</p>
<p>If you're in (5), document it, then figure out if you're now in (2), (3), or
(4). :-)</p>
<h4 id="nullability_intentional_violation" class="faq">Q: How do I tell the analyzer that I am intentionally violating nullability?</h4>
<p>In some cases, it may make sense for methods to intentionally violate
nullability. For example, your method may &mdash; for reasons of backward
compatibility &mdash; chose to return nil and log an error message in a method
with a non-null return type when the client violated a documented precondition
rather than check the precondition with <tt>NSAssert()</tt>. In these cases, you
can suppress the analyzer warning with a cast:
<pre class="code_example">
return (id _Nonnull)nil;
</pre>
Note that this cast does not affect code generation.
</p>
<h4 id="use_assert" class="faq">Q: The analyzer assumes that a loop body is never entered. How can I tell it that the loop body will be entered at least once?</h4>
<img src="images/example_use_assert.png" alt="example use assert">