UnnecessaryParentheses where IDE prompts for clarifying parentheses.

[eygraber]

The following code triggers a warning in the IDE, saying Expression should use clarifying parentheses:

val (adjustedFromItem, fromFragment) =
      validPages
        .firstOrNull { (from, frag) -> from != page && frag.isVisible }
        ?: null to null

It wants to correct it to:

val (adjustedFromItem, fromFragment) =
      validPages
        .firstOrNull { (from, frag) -> from != page && frag.isVisible }
        ?: (null to null)

But detekt flags it as UnnecessaryParentheses. I see the value of adding parentheses here, and a few other places that the IDE is suggesting it, but I don't want to have to suppress the detekt check in all of those places.

Can detekt use similar logic to exclude these cases?

[BraisGabin]

We should look at the rule that is warning this in IJ and see if we can integrate it in this rule.

[cortinico]

The following code triggers a warning in the IDE

Can we confirm that is a IDE warning and not a compiler warning? A compiler warning would be way easier to integrate if so.

[eygraber]

https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KTIJ-8888

[dimsuz]

It seems like this has been fixed by #4881 ?

At least I found the corresponding test case here.

[BraisGabin]

Yes, these one was fixed. Closing.

[eygraber]

@BraisGabin I found two occurrences where the IDE tells me to add clarifying parentheses, but after I do, detekt says it is a UnnecessaryParentheses violation. Here they are after adding the clarifying parentheses:

string("id") to (floatOrNull("progress") ?: (index.toFloat() / (segments.size - 1)))

and

progress = segmentJson.floatOrNull("progress") ?: (index.toFloat() / (segmentArray.size - 1)),

[BraisGabin]

I was thinking that maybe #5684 would fix it. But after checking a bit more it doesn't seem so.

[atulgpt]

Hi @BraisGabin / @eygraber I have added the fix at #5983