Expand SuppressWarningsWithoutExplanation to cover more warning types.

I am confused why this initially only applied to deprecation, while the markdown mentions _other_ types.

Of course, all should have a comment based on the style guide, so I've genericised the documentation too.

Fixes external #5218

PiperOrigin-RevId: 826084579

Author: graememorgan

core/src/main/java/com/google/errorprone/bugpatterns/SuppressWarningsWithoutExplanation.java

@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
 import static com.google.errorprone.BugPattern.SeverityLevel.WARNING;
 import static com.google.errorprone.matchers.Description.NO_MATCH;
 import static com.google.errorprone.matchers.Matchers.allOf;
+import static com.google.errorprone.matchers.Matchers.anyOf;
 import static com.google.errorprone.matchers.Matchers.hasArgumentWithValue;
 import static com.google.errorprone.matchers.Matchers.isSameType;
 import static com.google.errorprone.matchers.Matchers.stringLiteral;
@@ -48,8 +49,8 @@
  * Finds occurrences of {@code @SuppressWarnings} where there is definitely no explanation for why
  * it is safe.
  *
- * <p>The Google style guide mandates this for <em>all</em> suppressions; this is only matching on
- * {@code deprecation} as a trial.
+ * <p>The Google style guide mandates this for <em>all</em> suppressions; we're matching on a subset
+ * to start which seem important.
  */
 @BugPattern(
     summary =
@@ -64,7 +65,12 @@ public final class SuppressWarningsWithoutExplanation extends BugChecker
   private static final Matcher<AnnotationTree> SUPPRESS_WARNINGS =
       allOf(
           isSameType(SuppressWarnings.class),
-          hasArgumentWithValue("value", stringLiteral("deprecation")));
+          hasArgumentWithValue(
+              "value",
+              anyOf(
+                  stringLiteral("deprecation"),
+                  stringLiteral("rawtypes"),
+                  stringLiteral("unchecked"))));
 
   private final boolean emitDummyFixes;
 

docs/bugpattern/SuppressWarningsWithoutExplanation.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-Suppressions for `unchecked` or `rawtypes` warnings should have an accompanying
-comment to explain why the javac warning is safe to ignore.
+`@SuppressWarnings` should have an accompanying comment to explain why the javac
+warning is safe to ignore.
 
 Rather than just suppressing the warning: