Skip to content

unnecessary_null_checks should have tests with object patterns #59085

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.

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

Closed
srawlins opened this issue Mar 21, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by dart-archive/linter#4192
Closed

unnecessary_null_checks should have tests with object patterns #59085

srawlins opened this issue Mar 21, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by dart-archive/linter#4192
Assignees
Labels
devexp-linter Issues with the analyzer's support for the linter package legacy-area-analyzer Use area-devexp instead. linter-false-negative linter-new-language-feature P2 A bug or feature request we're likely to work on
Milestone

Comments

@srawlins
Copy link
Member

Child issue of #58837

I think there should be a test case like:

void f(int? a, int? b) {
  (b!, ) = (a, );
}

in which the lint rule would report that null-asserting at b! is unnecessary because the variable type is int?.

@pq pq added this to the Dart 3 beta 3 milestone Mar 21, 2023
@pq pq added linter-new-language-feature linter-false-negative P2 A bug or feature request we're likely to work on labels Mar 21, 2023
@pq pq self-assigned this Mar 22, 2023
@devoncarew devoncarew added devexp-linter Issues with the analyzer's support for the linter package legacy-area-analyzer Use area-devexp instead. labels Nov 19, 2024
@devoncarew devoncarew transferred this issue from dart-archive/linter Nov 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
devexp-linter Issues with the analyzer's support for the linter package legacy-area-analyzer Use area-devexp instead. linter-false-negative linter-new-language-feature P2 A bug or feature request we're likely to work on
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants