Complex Cases

[pouryafard75]

• [ ] Case 1: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/commit/d3533c1a0716ca114d294b3ea183504c9725698f

Dir: community/server/src/main/java/org/neo4j/server/security/ ssl/SslCertificateFactory.java	ssl/Certificates.java

MultiMappings must be discussed. @tsantalis

• [ ] Case 2: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/commit/04397f41107bd6de41b31d45a4e8e2ed65628bbe There is a recursive method checkForTestRoots. @tsantalis Should we match Line 139 parent commit testFolders.addAll(ModuleRootManager.getInstance(srcModule).getSourceRoots(JavaSourceRootType.TEST_SOURCE)); with Line 140 child commit testFolders.addAll(ModuleRootManager.getInstance(module).getSourceRoots(JavaSourceRootType.TEST_SOURCE));?

Line 139 parent is already matched with Line 132 child.

[tsantalis]

@pouryafard75 What is the issue here?

[pouryafard75]

@tsantalis For the case 1: Inline Method Refactoring private ensureFolderExists(path File) : void is reported and the bodyMapper is also correct but the statement containing method invocation call is not matched. In other words, the following statements can also be mapped:

• Line 92 parent => Line 74 child
• Line 93 parent => Line 75 child

[tsantalis]

ensureFolderExists(certificatePath.getParentFile());
ensureFolderExists(privateKeyPath.getParentFile());

should match with

certificatePath.getParentFile().mkdirs();
privateKeyPath.getParentFile().mkdirs();

[tsantalis]

@pouryafard75 In case of duplicate mappings, as in case 1 we have a rule to discard the mappings involving a call to extracted or inlined method.

So, in this case the mappings shown in https://github.com/pouryafard75/RM-ASTDiff/issues/21#issuecomment-1418240311 will be discarded. However, what we need is a sub-expression mapping between the expression passed as argument, which then becomes the expression used to call mkdirs()

We can generate these sub-expression mappings directly in the Extract/Inline Method refactoring objects, without making mappings at statement level.

[pouryafard75]

@tsantalis For case 2, the mappings are correct in my opinion. Let me know if you disagree. I will add it to the test cases.

[tsantalis]

@pouryafard75 Case2 : L139 -> R132 is an exact match. Thus it should have higher priority than the inexact match L139 -> R140 The diff is correct.