Fix invalid annotation literals #443
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Related to jakartaee/cdi#656 I'm not submitting this as a challenge, because we decided to compensate for this on our side, but I believe this should be fixed in the next major/minor CDI TCK version (4.1/5.0 I believe). |
Ladicek
force-pushed
the
fix-annotation-literals
branch
from
ed4b9e5
to
e87e0f7
Compare
The `Annotation.equals()` contract directly states that for two annotation objects to be equal, they must (among others) both implement the [same] annotation interface. The CDI TCK used to create instances of memberless annotations simply by instantiating an anonymous subclass of `AnnotationLiteral`, which doesn't implement the annotation interface and hence is invalid. It has never been a problem, because `AnnotationLiteral` implements equality in a slightly more permissive manner: instead of checking that both objects implement the same annotation interface, it checks that both objects are annotations that have an equal `annotationType()`. It becomes problematic when an implementation uses a different mechanism to instantiate annotations than extending `AnnotationLiteral`, one that closely follows the `Annotation` contract. This commit replaces all usages of such anonymous subclasses by proper `AnnotationLiteral` subclasses that implement the annotation interface as well.
Ladicek
force-pushed
the
fix-annotation-literals
branch
from
e87e0f7
to
c475f49
Compare
manovotn
approved these changes
Mar 7, 2023
|
Moving into ready for review state as 4.1 changes can go into main branch now. |
|
This has been approved before, so I'll just push the button :-) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
Annotation.equals()contract directly states that for two annotation objects to be equal, they must (among others) both implement the [same] annotation interface.The CDI TCK used to create instances of memberless annotations simply by instantiating an anonymous subclass of
AnnotationLiteral, which doesn't implement the annotation interface and hence is invalid.It has never been a problem, because
AnnotationLiteralimplements equality in a slightly more permissive manner: instead of checking that both objects implement the same annotation interface, it checks that both objects are annotations that have an equalannotationType(). It becomes problematic when an implementation uses a different mechanism to instantiate annotations than extendingAnnotationLiteral, one that closely follows theAnnotationcontract.This commit replaces all usages of such anonymous subclasses by proper
AnnotationLiteralsubclasses that implement the annotation interface as well.