[sonarqube-next]

This PR was created because a team member assigned issues to the Remediation Agent.

The read, write and execute permission-bit ternaries in OctalValuesCheck used negated != conditions, forcing readers to mentally invert each test. They now use positive == comparisons with the branches swapped, producing identical output while improving readability and clearing three SonarQube S9435 warnings.

View Project in SonarQube

---

Fixed Issues

java:S9435 - Invert this negated condition and swap the two branches of the ternary. • MINOR • View issue 1
java:S9435 - Invert this negated condition and swap the two branches of the ternary. • MINOR • View issue 2
java:S9435 - Invert this negated condition and swap the two branches of the ternary. • MINOR • View issue 3

Location: java:java-checks/src/main/java/org/sonar/java/checks/OctalValuesCheck.java:72

Why is this an issue?

A ternary expression packs both outcomes of a choice into a single line, so the reader takes in the condition and the two results at once. When the condition is negated, that reading no longer works in one pass: the reader has to invert the condition mentally before pairing each result with the case it belongs to. In order.status() != Status.SHIPPED ? "Pending" : "Shipped", the value that goes with "shipped" is the second one, even though shipping is what the condition talks about.

What changed

All three permission-bit ternaries used a negated != comparison, which forces the reader to mentally invert the condition before matching each branch to its case. The hunk rewrites each one with the equivalent positive == comparison and swaps the two result expressions ((bits & 4) != 0 ? 'r' : '-' becomes (bits & 4) == 0 ? '-' : 'r', and likewise for the write and execute bits). The produced string is identical because both the condition and the branches were flipped together, and the operands are side-effect-free, so only readability changes and the negated-condition warnings on the read, write and execute ternaries are resolved.

--- a/java-checks/src/main/java/org/sonar/java/checks/OctalValuesCheck.java
+++ b/java-checks/src/main/java/org/sonar/java/checks/OctalValuesCheck.java
@@ -72,3 +72,3 @@ public class OctalValuesCheck extends BaseTreeVisitor implements JavaFileScanner
-      sb.append((bits & 4) != 0 ? 'r' : '-')
-        .append((bits & 2) != 0 ? 'w' : '-')
-        .append((bits & 1) != 0 ? 'x' : '-');
+      sb.append((bits & 4) == 0 ? '-' : 'r')
+        .append((bits & 2) == 0 ? '-' : 'w')
+        .append((bits & 1) == 0 ? '-' : 'x');

---

SonarQube Remediation Agent uses AI. Check for mistakes.

[hashicorp-vault-sonar-prod]

SONARJAVA-7223

[gitar-bot]

Code Review ✅ Approved

🟢 Low risk · The three permission-bit ternaries only invert equivalent comparisons and swap branches, leaving generated permission strings unchanged.

Inverts the negated != ternaries in OctalValuesCheck permission-bit formatting to positive == comparisons with swapped branches, producing identical output. No issues found.

Verification Rules 2/2 met PRs 1 inspected

Functional validation No results

Rules 2 passed 1 not applicable

✅ Internal artifact registries
✅ Repository license compliance

Broader impact PRs 1 inspected

Cross-PR 1 PR inspected 0 open impacts

PR 6386: SONARJAVA-7222 Fix S9434 and S9435 issues Inspected

Auto-approval Not enabled

Set up

_{For more verification details, comment gitar display:verbose.}

Options

Auto-apply is off → Gitar will not commit updates to this branch.
Display: compact → Showing compact verification results.

Comment with these commands to change the behavior for this request:

Auto-apply	Compact
gitar auto-apply:on	gitar display:verbose

_{Was this helpful? React with 👍 / 👎 | Gitar}

[rombirli]

This rule already excludes ... != null conditions, it might make sense to also exclude ... != 0 conditions as well, as fixing it here doesn't improve much the code WDYT?

[sonarqube-next]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
3 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0 Dependency risks
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube