Check 95: Add filter so that some classes can be ignored.

[nununo]

I want to flag the use of me-> everywhere except in exception classes.

It would be great if a filter could be added so I could set it to ignore zcx_*.

I will try to implement this myself.

[ConjuringCoffee]

Why though? Is it because CX_ROOT has method parameters that are named exactly like attributes? If so, then that might be more sensible than defining filters on class name level 😉

[nununo]

Hum, well, I have this exception class which I think was generated by ABAP:

CLASS zcx_coot DEFINITION
  PUBLIC
    INHERITING FROM cx_static_check
  CREATE PUBLIC .

  PUBLIC SECTION.

    INTERFACES if_t100_dyn_msg .
    INTERFACES if_t100_message .

    METHODS constructor
      IMPORTING
        !textid   LIKE if_t100_message=>t100key OPTIONAL
        !previous LIKE previous OPTIONAL .
  PROTECTED SECTION.
  PRIVATE SECTION.
ENDCLASS.



CLASS zcx_coot IMPLEMENTATION.
  METHOD constructor ##ADT_SUPPRESS_GENERATION.
    CALL METHOD super->constructor
      EXPORTING
        previous = previous.
    CLEAR me->textid.
    IF textid IS NOT INITIAL.
      if_t100_message~t100key = textid.
    ENDIF.
  ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.

The constructor uses both the parameter textid and the attribute me->textid.

I agree that having method parameters shadow class attributes is a bad idea but this is code generated by SAP. What would you do in this case?

[ConjuringCoffee]

Personally, I think me-> only makes sense when parameters shadow attributes. Sometimes this can't be avoided.

My suggestion would be to adapt check 95 to not raise an error if there is shadowing. Check 46 already has shadowing detection, so you might be able to extract the logic from there.

[nununo]

That makes total sense. Perfect. I'll try to implement it. Thanks!