[Feature request] Isolating running BugCheckers from Java Compiler API about error-prone HOT 5 CLOSED

Thanks a lot for you input, i'll take that route then.

Yes, I've seen this plugin but I have something more integrated in mind - I'm planning to implement most of/all feature set of ErrorProne in a way that it can be managed through the plugin, such as:

• Running the checks from the IDE on a file/module/project/package etc.
• On the fly (as you type) checks that show up as errors/warnings in the editor
• Ability to apply the suggested fixes as intelliJ quick-fixes
• Configuring BugPatterns (turn on/off, group, change severity, add new ones etc.)
• As a bonus, some kind of an integration with Refaster in a "before->after" style custom DSL, although I didn't give this one much thought so it's a bit far fetched for now

from error-prone.

Worth to note that I do understand that an AST is still required for bug checkers to work and error-prone can't simply operate on .java files, but what I'm trying to figure out is whether there's a way of "adapting" between ASTs - say, IntelliJ PSI -> Java AST in my case

from error-prone.

Hello!

Thanks for raising this issue. I agree this would be nice to support, and I also agree it would be a huge change.

We have done some preliminary investigations into creating an API that abstracts over all of the information Error Prone access from the Java compiler, and that could be implemented by different compilers (e.g. one each for Javac, and IntelliJ, and Eclipse). I think it would be possible to do that, but the surface area of the APIs that need to be adapted is very large, so it would be a major API design project.

Which IDE are you working on a plugin for?

from error-prone.

Hi @cushon, thanks for the reply!

I'm working on a plugin for IntelliJ, so the other side of the bridge would be IntelliJ PSI

I agree that it's a very major piece of work. After opening this issue, I gave this more thought and I believe a more feasible approach for me would be implementing this using the "embedded compiler" approach i mentioned in the original post. What do you think?
I still need to profile this to see whether it introduces a major overhead - so just shooting in the dark with this.

from error-prone.

The 'embedded compiler' approach you describe sounds like it could work, and potentially be much simpler, so that sounds worth investigating to me.

Have you seen https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/7349-error-prone-compiler, or do you want something more tightly integrated that can interoperate with PSI for your use-case?

from error-prone.