-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Description
Description
Don't define an abstract private member within a public class.
Can be fixed by making the field public or adding the sealed class modifier.
Details
Kind: AVOID
Currently, the following produces zero static analysis warnings:
abstract base class A {
void _foo();
A() {
_foo(); // always throws an error
}
}Marking a field as abstract signifies that "subclasses should implement this", so making it private entirely defeats the purpose.
Examples
abstract class A {
// BAD
int get _value;
// BAD
void _foo();
// BAD
abstract final bool _value;
}
// GOOD: class is private instead
abstract class _A {
void foo();
}
// GOOD: class is marked as `sealed`
sealed class A {
void _foo();
}Discussion
If an abstract private field is added to a non-sealed public class, there are 3 possibilities:
- The
unused_elementrule is triggered - It's referenced in a public scope (see proposal:
private_field_outside_class#57139) - It's referenced only within other private scope(s) in the same library
Even though possibility number 3 would never result in an error, I still think it'd be good for this rule to apply: a lack of sealed or final indicates that the class can be built upon outside the declaring library, so if the private field provides utility within the library, IMO it should either be refactored or exposed as a public field.
Probably low-priority
If this proposal is motivated by real-world examples, please provide as many details as you can. Demonstrating potential impact is especially valuable.
I've never seen a class with an abstract private field.