This answer is more focused on the theory aspect of your question.
Fundamentally you are making an assertion: "This methods runs only under certain threads". This assertion isn't really different than any other assertion you might make ("The method accepts only integers less than 17 for parameter X"). Issues are
- Where do such assertions come from?
- Can static analyzers check them?
- Where do you get such a static analyzer?
Mostly such assertions have to come from the software designers, as they are the only people that know the intentions. The traditional term for this is "Design by Contract", although most DBC schemes are only over the current program state (C's assert macro) and they should really be over the programs' past and future states ("temporal assertions"), e.,g., "This routine will allocate a block of storage, and eventually some piece of code will deallocate it". One can build tools that try to determine hueristically what the assertions are (e.g., Engler's assertion induction work; others have done work in this area). That's useful, but the false positives are an issue. As practical matter, asking the designers to code such assertions doesn't seem particularly onerous, and is really good long term documentation. Whether you code such assertions with a specific "Contract" language construct, or with an if statement ("if Debug && Not(assertion) Then Fail();") or hide them in an annotation is really just a matter of convenience. Its nice when the language allows to code such assertions directly.
Checking of such assertions statically is difficult. If you stick with current-state only, the static analyzer pretty much has to do full data flow analysis of your entire application, because the information needed to satisfy the assertion likely comes from data created by another part of the application. (In your case, the "inside EDT" signal has to come from analyzing the whole call graph of the application to see if there is any call-path that leads to the method from a thread which is NOT the EDT thread). If you use temporal properties, the static check pretty much needs some kind of state-space verification logic in addition; these are presently still pretty much research tools. Even with all this machinery, static analyzers generally have to be "conservative" in their anlayses; if they can't demonstrate that something is false, they pretty much have to assume it is true, because of the halting problem.
Where do you get such analyzers? Given all the machinery needed, they're hard to build and so you should expect them to be rare. If somebody has built one, great. If not... as a general rule, you don't want do this yourself from scratch. The best long-term hope is to have generic program analysis machinery available on which to build such analyzers, to amortize the cost of building all the infrastructure. (I build program analyzer tool foundations; see our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit).
One way to make it "easier" to build such static analyzers is to restrict the cases they handle to narrow scope, e.g., CheckThread. I'd expect CheckThread to do exactly what it presently does, and it would be unlikely to get a lot stronger.
The reason that "assert" macros and other such dynamic "current state" checks are popular is that they can actually be implemented by a simple runtime test. That's pretty practical. The problem here is that you may never exercise a path that leads to a failed conditions. So, for dynamic analysis, absence of detected failure is not really evidence of correctness. Still feels good.
Bottom line: static analyzers and dynamic analyzers each have their strength.
This answer is more focused on the theory aspect of your question.
Fundamentally you are making an assertion: "This methods runs only under certain threads". This assertion isn't really different than any other assertion you might make ("The method accepts only integers less than 17 for parameter X"). Issues are
- Where do such assertions come from?
- Can static analyzers check them?
- Where do you get such a static analyzer?
Mostly such assertions have to come from the software designers, as they are the only people that know the intentions. The traditional term for this is "Design by Contract", although most DBC schemes are only over the current program state (C's assert macro) and they should really be over the programs' past and future states ("temporal assertions"), e.,g., "This routine will allocate a block of storage, and eventually some piece of code will deallocate it". One can build tools that try to determine hueristically what the assertions are (e.g., Engler's assertion induction work; others have done work in this area). That's useful, but the false positives are an issue. As practical matter, asking the designers to code such assertions doesn't seem particularly onerous, and is really good long term documentation. Whether you code such assertions with a specific "Contract" language construct, or with an if statement ("if Debug && Not(assertion) Then Fail();") or hide them in an annotation is really just a matter of convenience. Its nice when the language allows to code such assertions directly.
Checking of such assertions statically is difficult. If you stick with current-state only, the static analyzer pretty much has to do full data flow analysis of your entire application, because the information needed to satisfy the assertion likely comes from data created by another part of the application. (In your case, the "inside EDT" signal has to come from analyzing the whole call graph of the application to see if there is any call-path that leads to the method from a thread which is NOT the EDT thread). If you use temporal properties, the static check pretty much needs some kind of state-space verification logic in addition; these are presently still pretty much research tools. Even with all this machinery, static analyzers generally have to be "conservative" in their anlayses; if they can't demonstrate that something is false, they pretty much have to assume it is true, because of the halting problem.
Where do you get such analyzers? Given all the machinery needed, they're hard to build and so you should expect them to be rare. If somebody has built one, great. If not... as a general rule, you don't want do this yourself from scratch. The best long-term hope is to have generic program analysis machinery available on which to build such analyzers, to amortize the cost of building all the infrastructure. (I build program analyzer tool foundations; see our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit).
One way to make it "easier" to build such static analyzers is to restrict the cases they handle to narrow scope, e.g., CheckThread. I'd expect CheckThread to do exactly what it presently does, and it would be unlikely to get a lot stronger.
The reason that "assert" macros and other such dynamic "current state" checks are popular is that they can actually be implemented by a simple runtime test. That's pretty practical. The problem here is that you may never exercise a path that leads to a failed conditions. So, for dynamic analysis, absence of detected failure is not really evidence of correctness. Still feels good.
Bottom line: static analyzers and dynamic analyzers each have their strength.
We haven't tried any static analysis tools, but we've used AspectJ to write a simple aspect that detects at runtime when any code in java.awt or javax.swing is invoked outside the EDT. It has found several places in our code that were missing a SwingUtilities.invokeLater(). We run with this aspect enabled throughout our QA cycle, then turn it off shortly before release.