Suzanne Millstein

@mernst The tests are failing: ``` org.checkerframework.framework.test.junit.SideEffectsOnlyTest > run[/__w/1/s/framework/sideeffectsonly] FAILED java.lang.AssertionError: 16 out of 16 expected diagnostics were found. 2 unexpected diagnostics were found: CheckSideEffectsOnly.java:12: error: (purity.incorrect.sideeffectsonly) CheckSideEffectsOnly.java:17: error: (purity.incorrect.sideeffectsonly)...

This crash is fixed in master, but when running master on beam, there's another crash. I'm going to keep this issue open, and work on that crash.

This crash was fixed.

The implementation of `isSubtype` is a loop calling ``` boolean isSubtype( AnnotatedTypeMirror subtype, AnnotatedTypeMirror supertype, AnnotationMirror top) ``` for each hierarchy. So to implement this, for each error message, isSubtype...

The `p0` is coming from here: https://github.com/typetools/checker-framework/blob/0b8da55e27d1df4d4bee62ec6de2560384a176cf/framework/src/main/java/org/checkerframework/framework/type/DefaultAnnotatedTypeFormatter.java#L347-L348 There will still be cases where the parameter name is not in the element, but the parameter names for your test case will...

The error in `LambdaInit` is correct. Try compiling and running this code: ```java public class LambdaInit { String f1; Object o = new Object() { @Override public String toString() {...

Note if you initialize the fields in the constructor, the errors go away and there is not null pointer exception. ```java public class LambdaInit { String f1; Object o; String...

This is a true positive warning that is trying to prevent the following crash: ``` import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.List; import java.util.Optional; import java.util.stream.Collectors; public class Main { public static List...

I bet the full example included a call to filter: ``` optInts.stream().filter(Optional::isPresent) .map(Optional::get) .collect(Collectors.toList()); ``` In that case, the code should type check (even without `@Present` on the type of...

> @smillst does this look like #979 to you? No, there's no type argument inference on these lines.