Annotate toProvider(..) methods to specify that providers can return null.#1872
Merged
copybara-service[bot] merged 1 commit intomasterfrom Mar 8, 2025
Merged
Annotate toProvider(..) methods to specify that providers can return null.#1872copybara-service[bot] merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
toProvider(..) methods to specify that providers can return null.#1872copybara-service[bot] merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
Conversation
copybara-service
bot
force-pushed
the
test_734534964
branch
4 times, most recently
from
2b6a574 to
19eab7b
Compare
…n `null`. This doesn't change any Guice behavior; it just lets nullness checkers (like Kotlin and the Checker Framework) allow you to bind to such providers more easily. Guice's handling of `null` is not entirely principled, and this CL doesn't attempt to "solve" that, nor does it attempt to thoroughly annotate for nullness, let alone enable a nullness checker for the Guice codebase. Rather, it aims only to remove a restriction that I don't think is serving any particular purpose and that no on "intended"; I think it just kind of happened because the Checker Framework treats unannotated code leniently and strictly at different times, and this happens to be one of the strict cases. (We might also have once had the hope of cracking down on injection of `null`?) The immediate motivation for this CL is google/inject-common#26: Soon, nullness checkers will know that `Providers.of(null)` returns *gasp* a `Provider` that can return `null`. That makes `bind(Foo.class).to(Providers.of(null))` an error. This CL lets those callers continue to compile. PiperOrigin-RevId: 734755975
copybara-service
bot
force-pushed
the
test_734534964
branch
from
19eab7b to
cdf076c
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Annotate
toProvider(..)methods to specify that providers can returnnull.This doesn't change any Guice behavior; it just lets nullness checkers (like Kotlin and the Checker Framework) allow you to bind to such providers more easily.
Guice's handling of
nullis not entirely principled, and this CL doesn't attempt to "solve" that, nor does it attempt to thoroughly annotate for nullness, let alone enable a nullness checker for the Guice codebase. Rather, it aims only to remove a restriction that I don't think is serving any particular purpose and that no on "intended"; I think it just kind of happened because the Checker Framework treats unannotated code leniently and strictly at different times, and this happens to be one of the strict cases. (We might also have once had the hope of cracking down on injection ofnull?)The immediate motivation for this CL is google/inject-common#26: Soon, nullness checkers will know that
Providers.of(null)returns gasp aProviderthat can returnnull. That makesbind(Foo.class).to(Providers.of(null))an error. This CL lets those callers continue to compile.