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

8326100: DeflaterDictionaryTests should use Deflater.getBytesWritten instead of Deflater.getTotalOut #17901

Closed

Conversation

eirbjo
Copy link
Contributor

@eirbjo eirbjo commented Feb 17, 2024

Please review this test-only cleanup PR in preparation for deprecating Deflater.getTotalOut() in JDK-8326096.

This PR replaces various calls intest/jdk/java/util/zip/DeflaterDictionaryTests.java to Deflater.getTotalOut() with calls to Deflater.getBytesWritten() when formatting some debugging output lines.

Additionally, various debug output lines claim to print the result of calling Deflater.getAdler, but instead prints the output of `Deflater.getTotalOut'. This PR fixes this to print the actual Adler value instead.

Testing and verification: This is a test-only fix affecting only debug output. I have added the noreg-self label to the issue.


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-8326100: DeflaterDictionaryTests should use Deflater.getBytesWritten instead of Deflater.getTotalOut (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17901/head:pull/17901
$ git checkout pull/17901

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/17901
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17901/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 17901

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 17901

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17901.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 17, 2024

👋 Welcome back eirbjo! 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
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 17, 2024

@eirbjo 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 Feb 17, 2024
@eirbjo eirbjo marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2024 13:03
@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Feb 17, 2024
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Feb 17, 2024

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@AlanBateman AlanBateman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The hazard when the format specifiers are all %s.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 18, 2024

@eirbjo 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:

8326100: DeflaterDictionaryTests should use Deflater.getBytesWritten instead of Deflater.getTotalOut

Reviewed-by: alanb, jpai

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 187 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 3742bc6: 8323795: jcmd Compiler.codecache should print total size of code cache
  • 099b744: 8326117: ProblemList serviceability/jvmti/vthread/SuspendWithInterruptLock/SuspendWithInterruptLock.java#default in Xcomp mode
  • 39627bc: 6510914: JScrollBar.getMinimumSize() breaks the contract of JComponent.setMinimumSize()
  • 7004c27: 8303972: (zipfs) Make test/jdk/jdk/nio/zipfs/TestLocOffsetFromZip64EF.java independent of the zip command line
  • c2d9fa2: 8326000: Remove obsolete comments for class sun.security.ssl.SunJSSE
  • f50df10: 8299023: TestPLABResize.java and TestPLABPromotion.java are failing intermittently
  • cf13086: 8317697: refactor-encapsulate x86 VM_Version::CpuidInfo
  • 3b76372: 8325687: SimpleJavaFileObject specification would benefit from implSpec
  • b5df2f4: 8323170: j2dbench is using outdated javac source/target to be able to build by itself
  • 267780b: 8324680: Replace NULL with nullptr in JVMTI generated code
  • ... and 177 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/692c9f8821e220560927dd6bbedfea9ddfe312f6...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 Feb 18, 2024
@eirbjo
Copy link
Contributor Author

eirbjo commented Feb 18, 2024

Thanks for your review Alan!

The hazard when the format specifiers are all %s.

Not sure I understand your comment since all arguments are of the same type (int) anyhow, I guess they would still be easy to get wrong or in the wrong order. Was that the hazard you refer to?

Anyhow, I went ahead and replaced the %s specifiers with the more specific decimal integer specifier %d. I verified that the output remains identical.

WDYT?

Copy link
Member

@jaikiran jaikiran left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The changes look good to me.

@AlanBateman
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your review Alan!

The hazard when the format specifiers are all %s.

Not sure I understand your comment since all arguments are of the same type (int) anyhow, I guess they would still be easy to get wrong or in the wrong order. Was that the hazard you refer to?

Yes, it's easy to get a silent mismatch. In this case, the first message printed by testByteArray, the second parameter should have been the Adler but it was actually printing the number of bytes written. You've fixed it, and switched to %d, so all good.

@eirbjo
Copy link
Contributor Author

eirbjo commented Feb 19, 2024

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 19, 2024

Going to push as commit 9451677.
Since your change was applied there have been 188 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • d422811: 8324630: C1: Canonicalizer::do_LookupSwitch doesn't break the loop when the successor is found
  • 3742bc6: 8323795: jcmd Compiler.codecache should print total size of code cache
  • 099b744: 8326117: ProblemList serviceability/jvmti/vthread/SuspendWithInterruptLock/SuspendWithInterruptLock.java#default in Xcomp mode
  • 39627bc: 6510914: JScrollBar.getMinimumSize() breaks the contract of JComponent.setMinimumSize()
  • 7004c27: 8303972: (zipfs) Make test/jdk/jdk/nio/zipfs/TestLocOffsetFromZip64EF.java independent of the zip command line
  • c2d9fa2: 8326000: Remove obsolete comments for class sun.security.ssl.SunJSSE
  • f50df10: 8299023: TestPLABResize.java and TestPLABPromotion.java are failing intermittently
  • cf13086: 8317697: refactor-encapsulate x86 VM_Version::CpuidInfo
  • 3b76372: 8325687: SimpleJavaFileObject specification would benefit from implSpec
  • b5df2f4: 8323170: j2dbench is using outdated javac source/target to be able to build by itself
  • ... and 178 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/692c9f8821e220560927dd6bbedfea9ddfe312f6...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Feb 19, 2024
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Feb 19, 2024
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Feb 19, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 19, 2024

@eirbjo Pushed as commit 9451677.

💡 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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants