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

8255899: Allow uninstallation of jpackage exe bundles #1770

Closed

Conversation

@alexeysemenyukoracle
Copy link
Member

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle commented Dec 14, 2020

Adds support for "uninstall" parameter for exe uninstallers created by jpackage.
Added logging and error reporting to exe uninstallers.

  • jpackage jni lib (jpackage.cpp): added functionality to extract ProductCode property from msi file before the file is embedded in exe installer. Extracted value of ProductCode property is saved as another resource entry in exe installer. Value of this property is needed for uninstall.
  • exe installer (MsiWrapper.cpp): added functionality to extract value of ProductCode from the resources and use it to uninstall the product. The code is not invoking msiexec.exe, but uses MSI API directly. Besides improved logging and error reporting. Previously it didn't exist at all, nothing was written to console/message box displayed in case of any errors.

Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8255899: Allow uninstallation of jpackage exe bundles

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1770/head:pull/1770
$ git checkout pull/1770

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 14, 2020

👋 Welcome back asemenyuk! 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 label Dec 14, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 14, 2020

@alexeysemenyukoracle 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 label Dec 14, 2020
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Dec 14, 2020

Webrevs

Copy link

@andyherrick andyherrick left a comment

Looks fine - passes some additional tests - OK for 17

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 15, 2020

@alexeysemenyukoracle 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:

8255899: Allow uninstallation of jpackage exe bundles

Reviewed-by: almatvee, herrick

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 17 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • a372be4: 8258244: Shenandoah: Not expecting forwarded object in roots during mark after JDK-8240868
  • 568dc29: 8185734: [Windows] Structured Exception Catcher missing around gtest execution
  • 3ab1dfe: 8257828: SafeFetch may crash if invoked in non-JavaThreads
  • 381021a: Merge
  • afc4441: 8258094: AIX build fails after 8257602
  • 164c8a6: 8258092: Link to early access platform documentation in TestHtmlTableTags.java
  • 43dc3f7: 8254350: CompletableFuture.get may swallow InterruptedException
  • 6d79ec8: 8258111: Problemlist compiler/blackhole tests for -Xcomp until JDK-8258101 is fixed
  • 2001da3: 8257596: Clarify trusted final fields for record classes
  • b1afed7: 8257919: [JVMCI] profiling info didn't change after reprofile
  • ... and 7 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/1ff0f1673d582638bc93797c480fd94bd28ea1b9...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 label Dec 15, 2020
@alexeysemenyukoracle
Copy link
Member Author

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle commented Dec 15, 2020

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Dec 15, 2020
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Dec 15, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 15, 2020

@alexeysemenyukoracle Since your change was applied there have been 18 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 65756ab: 8257802: LogCompilation throws couldn't find bytecode on JDK 8 log
  • a372be4: 8258244: Shenandoah: Not expecting forwarded object in roots during mark after JDK-8240868
  • 568dc29: 8185734: [Windows] Structured Exception Catcher missing around gtest execution
  • 3ab1dfe: 8257828: SafeFetch may crash if invoked in non-JavaThreads
  • 381021a: Merge
  • afc4441: 8258094: AIX build fails after 8257602
  • 164c8a6: 8258092: Link to early access platform documentation in TestHtmlTableTags.java
  • 43dc3f7: 8254350: CompletableFuture.get may swallow InterruptedException
  • 6d79ec8: 8258111: Problemlist compiler/blackhole tests for -Xcomp until JDK-8258101 is fixed
  • 2001da3: 8257596: Clarify trusted final fields for record classes
  • ... and 8 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/1ff0f1673d582638bc93797c480fd94bd28ea1b9...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit d53ee62.

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

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle deleted the alexeysemenyukoracle:JDK-8255899_2 branch Jan 14, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
3 participants