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

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:

Was this page helpful?

Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at

If you do not see the email in your inbox, please check if it is filtered to one of the following folders:

• Promotion
• Updates
• Spam

If you can’t find an answer to your question, fill in the form below and our developers will contact you

By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement