JDK-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier #17338

jddarcy · 2024-01-10T06:00:18Z

Add a few apiNote concerning source-level modifiers that are not represented in java.lang.reflect.Modifier.

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-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Alan Bateman (@AlanBateman - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to cc67f321

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17338/head:pull/17338
$ git checkout pull/17338

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/17338
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17338/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 17338

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 17338

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17338.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2024-01-10T06:01:09Z

👋 Welcome back darcy! 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 · 2024-01-10T06:02:29Z

@jddarcy 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.

mlbridge · 2024-01-10T06:05:40Z

Webrevs

AlanBateman · 2024-01-10T10:46:28Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java

+     * @apiNote
+     * To make a high-fidelity representation of the Java source
+     * modifiers of a class or member, source-level modifiers that do
+     * not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be


The wording looks okay, just a repeated "not" here.

pavelrappo · 2024-01-10T10:14:24Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java

+     * @apiNote
+     * To make a high-fidelity representation of the Java source
+     * modifiers of a class or member, source-level modifiers that do
+     * not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be


Suggested change

* not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be

* <em>not</em> have a constant in this class should be

pavelrappo · 2024-01-10T10:17:10Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java

+     * To make a high-fidelity representation of the Java source
+     * modifiers of a class or member, source-level modifiers that do
+     * not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be
+     * included and ordered consistent with the full recommended


Suggested change

* included and ordered consistent with the full recommended

* included and ordered consistently with the full recommended

Yes, "ordered consistently with" or "with order consistent with", I think both will work here.

I think, Joe might be considering "consistent" to be flat.

pavelrappo · 2024-01-10T10:59:04Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java

+     * Java Language Specification</cite>. For example, for a
+     * {@linkplain Method#toGenericString() method} the "{@link
+     * Method#isDefault() default}" modifier is ordered immediately
+     * before "{@code static}" (JLS {@jls 9.4}). For a {@linkplain


Nothing wrong with that, but note that unlike other similar sections, for whatever reason, JLS 9.4 does not suggest this:

If two or more (distinct) ... modifiers appear in a ... declaration, it is customary, though not required, that they appear in the order consistent with that shown above in the production for ...

I mused about the reasons behind it recently, but only JLS experts know them for sure. (CC'in @dansmithcode)

openjdk · 2024-01-12T17:37:37Z

@jddarcy 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:

8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier

Reviewed-by: alanb

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 65 new commits pushed to the master branch:

999e556: 8312518: [macos13] setFullScreenWindow() shows black screen on macOS 13 & above
8b6293f: 8301994: Remove unused code from awt_List.cpp
e33031b: 8323629: Shenandoah: Fix missing include and declaration
c5e7245: 8322735: C2: minor improvements of bubble sort used in SuperWord::packset_sort
65a0672: 8319773: Avoid inflating monitors when installing hash codes for LM_LIGHTWEIGHT
e22ab10: 8322537: Parallel: Remove experimental adjustment in PSAdaptiveSizePolicy
be900f1: 8323425: JFR: Auto-generated filename doesn't work with time-limited recording
68c4286: 8323008: filter out harmful -std* flags added by autoconf from CXX
7dc9dd6: 8234502: Merge GenCollectedHeap and SerialHeap
ed18222: 8323190: Segfault during deoptimization of C2-compiled code
... and 55 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e9f7db304559cbc8e2b46ea30496d3c570569f4c...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.

jddarcy · 2024-01-12T19:39:44Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2024-01-12T19:40:56Z

Going to push as commit 9e9c05f.
Since your change was applied there have been 67 commits pushed to the master branch:

c54bca6: 8323617: Add missing null checks to GetMousePositionWithPopup.java test
95a9168: 8323627: Shenandoah: Refactor init logger
999e556: 8312518: [macos13] setFullScreenWindow() shows black screen on macOS 13 & above
8b6293f: 8301994: Remove unused code from awt_List.cpp
e33031b: 8323629: Shenandoah: Fix missing include and declaration
c5e7245: 8322735: C2: minor improvements of bubble sort used in SuperWord::packset_sort
65a0672: 8319773: Avoid inflating monitors when installing hash codes for LM_LIGHTWEIGHT
e22ab10: 8322537: Parallel: Remove experimental adjustment in PSAdaptiveSizePolicy
be900f1: 8323425: JFR: Auto-generated filename doesn't work with time-limited recording
68c4286: 8323008: filter out harmful -std* flags added by autoconf from CXX
... and 57 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e9f7db304559cbc8e2b46ea30496d3c570569f4c...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2024-01-12T19:41:02Z

@jddarcy Pushed as commit 9e9c05f.

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

JDK-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier

d96a296

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 10, 2024

openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 10, 2024

AlanBateman reviewed Jan 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

pavelrappo reviewed Jan 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

jddarcy added 2 commits January 10, 2024 10:52

Implement review feedback.

e581688

Refine wording per review feedback.

cc67f32

AlanBateman approved these changes Jan 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jan 12, 2024

Reflow paragraph.

dabd8ed

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jan 12, 2024

openjdk bot closed this Jan 12, 2024

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jan 12, 2024

jddarcy deleted the JDK-8322979 branch October 17, 2024 16:51

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

JDK-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier #17338

JDK-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier #17338

jddarcy commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 10, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 10, 2024

mlbridge bot commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AlanBateman Jan 10, 2024

pavelrappo Jan 10, 2024

pavelrappo Jan 10, 2024

AlanBateman Jan 11, 2024

pavelrappo Aug 22, 2024

pavelrappo Jan 10, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jddarcy commented Jan 12, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024

	* not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be
	* <em>not</em> have a constant in this class should be

	* included and ordered consistent with the full recommended
	* included and ordered consistently with the full recommended

JDK-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier #17338

JDK-8322979: Add informative discussion to Modifier #17338

Conversation

jddarcy commented Jan 10, 2024 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Webrev

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 10, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 10, 2024

mlbridge bot commented Jan 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Webrevs

AlanBateman Jan 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pavelrappo Jan 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pavelrappo Jan 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlanBateman Jan 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pavelrappo Aug 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pavelrappo Jan 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024 • edited Loading

jddarcy commented Jan 12, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024

jddarcy commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading