Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8319556: Harmonize interface formatting in the FFM API #16528

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

minborg
Copy link
Contributor

@minborg minborg commented Nov 6, 2023

This PR proposes to remove two permits declarations where the line overflows the stipulated maximum column with. Also, it proposes to harmonize the layout of permit formatting so they are the the same throughout the API.

This PR might be perceived as over worked but I think it nice to get consistency across the API now that we go final.


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8319556: Harmonize interface formatting in the FFM API (Enhancement - P5)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16528/head:pull/16528
$ git checkout pull/16528

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/16528
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16528/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 16528

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 16528

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16528.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 6, 2023

👋 Welcome back pminborg! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Nov 6, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 6, 2023

@minborg The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Nov 6, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Nov 6, 2023

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@mcimadamore mcimadamore left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I will prefer to see this done on a by-need basis. E.g. if the line fits in the 100 char margin, (as it seems the case in a lot of the changes here), I don't see an immediate need to make changes?

@mcimadamore
Copy link
Contributor

There seems to be still changes that are not needed. E.g. AddressLayout, GroupLayout and all the nested classes inside ValueLayout.

@minborg
Copy link
Contributor Author

minborg commented Nov 7, 2023

Hrmm. I reformatted all classes of the same category where at least one of them needed reformatting to make it more consistent. For example: OfBoolean overflows but not OfByte. So, all of the of* were consistently reformatted. So, let's pick a choice here:

  1. Reformat only those specific classes needing it not bothering if similar classes look different
  2. Keep it as it is.

I am happy to do either.

@mcimadamore
Copy link
Contributor

Hrmm. I reformatted all classes of the same category where at least one of them needed reformatting to make it more consistent. For example: OfBoolean overflows but not OfByte. So, all of the of* were consistently reformatted. So, let's pick a choice here:

1. Reformat only those specific classes needing it not bothering if similar classes look different

2. Keep it as it is.

I am happy to do either.

I'm fine with value layout nested classes, but what about AddressLayout/GroupLayout?

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 7, 2023

@minborg This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8319556: Harmonize interface formatting in the FFM API

Reviewed-by: mcimadamore

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 22 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 0dcd730: 8318594: NMT: VM.native_memory crashes on assert if functionality isn't supported by OS
  • 45e68ae: 8319532: jshell - Non-sealed declarations sometimes break a snippet evaluation
  • 4a0ad46: 8317937: @sealedGraph: Links to inner classes fails in links
  • 134c382: 8319560: Reformat method parameters in the FFM API
  • ef8c840: 8319607: FFM: Review the language in the FFM documentation
  • bf9a93d: 8319204: G1: Change G1CMTask::_termination_time_ms to wallclock time
  • b2504a0: 8319525: RISC-V: Rename *_riscv64.ad files to *_riscv.ad under riscv/gc
  • bfafb27: 8319615: IGV incomplete gitignore
  • c760097: 8319541: G1: Inline G1RemoveSelfForwardsTask into RestoreRetainedRegionsTask
  • 85e4cde: 8319620: Parallel: Remove unused PSPromotionManager::*_is_full getters and setters
  • ... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/cdf337357a62dd52c00e56e75912565e15b6adfd...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 7, 2023
@minborg
Copy link
Contributor Author

minborg commented Nov 8, 2023

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 8, 2023

Going to push as commit 73c5f60.
Since your change was applied there have been 29 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • cc4b0d9: 8319378: Spec for j.util.Timer::purge and j.util.Timer::cancel could be improved
  • a290256: 8315680: java/lang/ref/ReachabilityFenceTest.java should run with -Xbatch
  • b1625af: 8305814: Update Xalan Java to 2.7.3
  • 806529a: 8319573: Change to Visual Studio 17.6.5 for building on Windows at Oracle
  • e9eb8b9: 8319338: tools/jpackage/share/RuntimeImageTest.java fails with -XX:+UseZGC
  • 8eb6f61: 8319436: Proxy.newProxyInstance throws NPE if loader is null and interface not visible from class loader
  • 8274713: 8314891: Additional Zip64 extra header validation
  • 0dcd730: 8318594: NMT: VM.native_memory crashes on assert if functionality isn't supported by OS
  • 45e68ae: 8319532: jshell - Non-sealed declarations sometimes break a snippet evaluation
  • 4a0ad46: 8317937: @sealedGraph: Links to inner classes fails in links
  • ... and 19 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/cdf337357a62dd52c00e56e75912565e15b6adfd...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 8, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Nov 8, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 8, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 8, 2023

@minborg Pushed as commit 73c5f60.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
2 participants