To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (standard version)
Enterprise License (extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
>
V6067. Two or more case-branches perfor…
Analyzer Diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Diagnosis of micro-optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
Additional information
Contents

V6067. Two or more case-branches perform the same actions.

Jun 19 2019

The analyzer has detected a situation where different case labels of a switch statement contain the same code. Those are often redundant code, which could be improved by merging the labels. On the other hand, identical code fragments may also result from the use of the copy-paste technique, in which case they are errors rather than simply redundant code.

Consider the following example of redundant code:

public static String getSymmetricCipherName(SymmetricKeyAlgorithmTags tag)
{
    switch (tag)
    {
        case DES:
            return "DES";
        case AES_128:
            return "AES";
        case AES_192:
            return "AES";
        case AES_256:
            return "AES";
        case CAMELLIA_128:
            return "Camellia";
        case CAMELLIA_192:
            return "Camellia";
        case CAMELLIA_256:
            return "Camellia";
        case TWOFISH:
            return "Twofish";
        default:
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("....");
    }
}

In real projects there are cases when it is needed to perform equal actions. In order to make the code more readable, one can write the code more densely:

public static String getSymmetricCipherName(SymmetricKeyAlgorithmTags tag)
{
    switch (tag)
    {
        case DES:
            return "DES";
        case AES_128:
        case AES_192:
        case AES_256:
            return "AES";
        case CAMELLIA_128:
        case CAMELLIA_192:
        case CAMELLIA_256:
            return "Camellia";
        case TWOFISH:
            return "Twofish";
        default:
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("....");
    }
}

The next example is taken from a real application and demonstrates faulty behavior resulting from a typo:

protected boolean condition(Actor actor) throws ....
{
  ....
  if (fieldValue instanceof Number) 
  {
    ....
    switch (tokens[2]) 
    {
      case "=":
      case "==":
        passing = (Double) fieldValue
                  == 
                  Double.parseDouble(secondValue);
        break;
      case "!":
      case "!=":
        passing = (Double) fieldValue 
                  ==
                  Double.parseDouble(secondValue);
        break;
      case "<=":
        passing = ((Number) fieldValue).doubleValue() 
                  <=
                  Double.parseDouble(secondValue);
        break;
      ....
    }
   ....
  }
  ....
}

There is a typo in the code of the marks '!' and '!=' which apparently occurred due to copy-paste. After viewing other case branches, we can conclude that the comparison operator '!=' had to be used instead of '=='.

Fixed code:

protected boolean condition(Actor actor) throws ....
{
  ....
  if (fieldValue instanceof Number) 
  {
    ....
    switch (tokens[2]) 
    {
      case "=":
      case "==":
        passing = (Double) fieldValue
                  ==
                  Double.parseDouble(secondValue);
        break;
      case "!":
      case "!=":
        passing = (Double) fieldValue 
                  !=
                  Double.parseDouble(secondValue);
        break;
      case "<=":
        passing = ((Number) fieldValue).doubleValue() 
                  <=
                  Double.parseDouble(secondValue);
        break;
      ....
    }
   ....
  }
  ....
}

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V6067 diagnostic.

This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →
Accept