Add SuppressWarnings annotations to test to suppress static method warnings

Eclipse complains about methods that could be static but aren't.

JUnit test methods are entry points found by reflection by the test runner
so often are non-static even though they could be.

This just adds an annotation to each test class that suppresses these
bogus warnings.

It could be done in Eclipse, but warning filtering is a major PITA and
isn't conducive to warning-free builds by someone who is downloading
the source for the first time.

----

Submitted @ r5544

[MikeSamuel, 2013-08-08 00:45:39]

Eclipse complains about methods that could be static but aren't.

JUnit test methods are entry points found by reflection by the test runner
so often are non-static even though they could be.

This just adds an annotation to each test class that suppresses these
bogus warnings.

It could be done in Eclipse, but warning filtering is a major PITA and
isn't conducive to warning-free builds by someone who is downloading
the source for the first time.

[MikeSamuel, 2013-08-08 00:46:44]

This CL is formulaic and one line per-file so it may be easier to review the raw
patch.

[felix8a, 2013-08-08 00:52:00]

On 2013/08/08 00:46:44, MikeSamuel wrote:
> This CL is formulaic and one line per-file so it may be easier to review the
raw
> patch.

There isn't a warning about unnecessary use of SuppressWarnings?

lgtm

[MikeSamuel, 2013-08-08 19:02:41]

Eclipse complains about methods that could be static but aren't.

JUnit test methods are entry points found by reflection by the test runner
so often are non-static even though they could be.

This just adds an annotation to each test class that suppresses these
bogus warnings.

It could be done in Eclipse, but warning filtering is a major PITA and
isn't conducive to warning-free builds by someone who is downloading
the source for the first time.

[MikeSamuel, 2013-08-08 19:03:27]

On 2013/08/08 00:52:00, felix8a wrote:
> On 2013/08/08 00:46:44, MikeSamuel wrote:
> > This CL is formulaic and one line per-file so it may be easier to review the
> raw
> > patch.
> 
> There isn't a warning about unnecessary use of SuppressWarnings?
> 
> lgtm

Good point.  I checked this in a client with an Eclipse project and pruned it.

[felix8a, 2013-08-08 19:08:05]

lgtm