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 · 0 comments
Open

Consider using ExplicitInitialization checkstyle rule #45168

philwebb opened this issue Apr 11, 2025 · 0 comments
Labels
for: team-meeting An issue we'd like to discuss as a team to make progress status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged

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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
for: team-meeting An issue we'd like to discuss as a team to make progress status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@philwebb