package networking;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.net.Socket;
import java.util.Calendar;
import java.util.Date;
import java.util.TimeZone;
@SuppressWarnings("PMD.ShortClassName")
public final class Time {
private static final String HOSTNAME = "time.nist.gov";
private Time() {
throw new IllegalStateException("Private constructor");
}
@SuppressWarnings("fallthrough")
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
Date d;
switch (args.length) {
case 0:
d = Time.getDateFromNetwork();
System.out.println("It is " + d);
System.exit(0);
case 1:
d = Time.getDateFromNetwork(args[0], 37);
System.out.println("It is " + d);
System.exit(0);
case 2:
default:
d = Time.getDateFromNetwork(args[0], Integer.parseInt(args[1]));
System.out.println("It is " + d);
System.exit(0);
}
} catch (IOException e) {
System.err.println(e.getMessage());
}
}
public static Date getDateFromNetwork() throws IOException {
return getDateFromNetwork(HOSTNAME, 37);
}
public static Date getDateFromNetwork(String host, int port)
throws IOException {
// The time protocol sets the epoch at 1900,
// the Java Date class at 1970. This number
// converts between them.
// long differenceBetweenEpochs = 2208988800L;
TimeZone gmt = TimeZone.getTimeZone("GMT");
Calendar epoch1900 = Calendar.getInstance(gmt);
epoch1900.set(1900, 01, 01, 00, 00, 00);
long epoch1900ms = epoch1900.getTime().getTime();
Calendar epoch1970 = Calendar.getInstance(gmt);
epoch1970.set(1970, 01, 01, 00, 00, 00);
long epoch1970ms = epoch1970.getTime().getTime();
long differenceInMS = epoch1970ms - epoch1900ms;
long differenceBetweenEpochs = differenceInMS / 1000;
Socket socket = new Socket(host, port);
socket.setSoTimeout(15_000);
InputStream raw = socket.getInputStream();
long secondsSince1900 = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
secondsSince1900 = (secondsSince1900 << 8) | raw.read();
}
long secondsSince1970 = secondsSince1900 - differenceBetweenEpochs;
long msSince1970 = secondsSince1970 * 1000;
return new Date(msSince1970);
}
}
The empty case statement breaks the above rule giving a false positive. Obviously, there's not a fix in for this as yet. Do you have a workaround or do we suppress the rule until a fix is in?
Why can't PMD recognise the SuppressWarnings for fall through or comments beside the case statements stating the same?
Originally posted by @Fernal73 in #659 (comment)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4