Check if 'search' is initialized.

[voxik]

The search was checked previously, so maybe it should be checked also at this place.

This issue was identified by Coverity scanner:

Error: FORWARD_NULL (CWE-476):
rubygem-bundler-1.16.1/usr/share/gems/gems/bundler-1.16.1/lib/bundler/lazy_specification.rb:77: null_check: Comparing "search" to a null-like value implies that "search" might be null-like.
rubygem-bundler-1.16.1/usr/share/gems/gems/bundler-1.16.1/lib/bundler/lazy_specification.rb:83: property_access: Accessing a property of null-like value "search".
#   81|             search = source.specs.search(self).last
#   82|           end
#   83|->         search.dependencies = dependencies if search.is_a?(RemoteSpecification) || search.is_a?(EndpointSpecification)
#   84|           search
#   85|         end

[colby-swandale]

Thanks @bundlerbot r+

[bundlerbot]

📌 Commit ed46f24 has been approved by colby-swandale

[bundlerbot]

⌛ Testing commit ed46f24 with merge 0aa5ea7...

[bundlerbot]

☀️ Test successful - status-travis
Approved by: colby-swandale
Pushing 0aa5ea7 to master...

[rafaelfranca]

I know this is a ok change but is not this scanner broken? I don't see how this code would end up in an error if search is nil. nil is not a RemoteSpecification or EndpointSpecification so search.dependencies = dependencies would not be executed.

>> class RemoteSpecification; end
=> nil
>> class EndpointSpecification; end
=> nil
>> search = nil
=> nil
>> search.dependencies = dependencies if search.is_a?(RemoteSpecification) || search.is_a?(EndpointSpecification)
=> nil

[deivid-rodriguez]

You're right!

[voxik]

I think the extra check makes the code more readable and actually more safe, since next time, somebody extending the condition for whatever reason, won't forget this check.