Java: `Modifiable.hasModifier(string)` reports implicit modifiers

[Marcono1234]

Description

The documentation for Modifiable.hasModifier(string) says:

For most purposes, the more specialized predicates isAbstract, isPublic, etc. should be used, which also take implicit modifiers into account.

This suggests that it should only hold if an explicit modifier is used. However, this does not seem to be the case.
This makes it difficult to write any queries taking explicit modifier usage into account (e.g. checking for redundant modifiers), and also renders some special casing code in the CodeQL classes pointless.

The current behavior is therefore probably incorrect, only the respective predicates, such as isFinal() or isStatic(), which explicitly mention that they also hold for implicit modifiers should hold. Predicates reporting explicit modifiers such as hasModifier, and probably also getAModifier and hasNoModifier, should not hold. Their documentation should also more clearly mention that they only are supposed to only match explicit modifiers.

Affected cases

(List is likely incomplete)

• Records: Are always reported as final and, for nested records, static
  Query Console link
• Enums are always reported as final and, for nested enums, static
• Nested interfaces are always reported as static
• Interface methods are always reported as public (unless explicitly private) and abstract (unless default or static)
• Interface fields are always reported as static

[dbartol]

Thanks for the report. At the very least, the documentation is incorrect, but I've forwarded the issue to our Java team to determine if the implementation should be changed instead.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 14 days with no activity. Comment or remove the stale label in order to avoid having this issue closed in 7 days.

[smowton]

#5682

[smowton]

Documented current behaviour in #5682. Could consider exposing only explicit modifiers if there's a pressing need, though this would be low priority.