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

8261096: Convert jlink tool to use Stream.toList() #2416

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@igraves
Copy link
Member

@igraves igraves commented Feb 4, 2021

A subtask JDK-8260559. This is an enhancement to update jlink's usage of Collections.toList() to Stream.toList().


Progress

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

Issue

  • JDK-8261096: Convert jlink tool to use Stream.toList()

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2416/head:pull/2416
$ git checkout pull/2416

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 4, 2021

👋 Welcome back igraves! 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.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label Feb 4, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 4, 2021

@igraves 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.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the core-libs label Feb 4, 2021
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Feb 4, 2021

Webrevs

Loading

Copy link
Contributor

@AlanBateman AlanBateman left a comment

Looks fine, if any of these lists were being modified then I would expect the build and/or tests to fail.

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 5, 2021

@igraves 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:

8261096: Convert jlink tool to use Stream.toList()

Reviewed-by: alanb, smarks

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 43 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 0218917: 8258732: runtime/cds/appcds/dynamicArchive/DynamicArchiveRelocationTest.java fails
  • f9df366: 8242300: SystemDictionary::resolve_super_or_fail() should look for the super class first
  • 43ae0cf: 8261167: print_process_memory_info add a close call after fopen
  • 48f5220: 8260369: [PPC64] Add support for JDK-8200555
  • 224c166: 8261213: [BACKOUT] MutableSpace's end should be atomic
  • 3495feb: 8260296: SA's dumpreplaydata fails
  • 0791899: 8261154: Memory leak in Java_java_lang_ClassLoader_defineClass0 with long class names
  • 78b0d32: 8234534: Simplify CardTable code after CMS removal
  • ee2f205: 8260926: Trace resource exhausted events unconditionally
  • 1e0a101: 8259862: MutableSpace's end should be atomic
  • ... and 33 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/f025bc1d5d81532a3bdb87665537de4aaf15b7ea...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.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@AlanBateman, @stuart-marks) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Feb 5, 2021
Copy link
Member

@stuart-marks stuart-marks left a comment

Aside from the simplification issues, the Collectors.toList() => Stream.toList() conversions look fine.

Loading

@igraves
Copy link
Member Author

@igraves igraves commented Feb 5, 2021

/integrate

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor label Feb 5, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 5, 2021

@igraves
Your change (at version db43218) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

Loading

@AlanBateman
Copy link
Contributor

@AlanBateman AlanBateman commented Feb 9, 2021

/sponsor

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Feb 9, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 9, 2021

@AlanBateman @igraves Since your change was applied there have been 85 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 2f893c2: 8260337: Optimize ImageReader lookup, used by Class.getResource
  • f0bd9db: 8257569: Failure observed with JfrVirtualMemory::initialize
  • 906faca: 8260372: [PPC64] Add support for JDK-8210498 and JDK-8222841
  • b38d5be: 8261340: Fix 'deprecated' warnings in the vmTestbase/nsk tests
  • b0e7e5a: 8261263: Simplify javadoc link code
  • 8ebed28: 8261237: remove isClassPathAttributePresent method
  • 5183d8a: 8260355: AArch64: deoptimization stub should save vector registers
  • 5d8204b: 8261368: The new TestNullSetColor test is placed in the wrong group
  • f03e839: 8261127: Cleanup THREAD/TRAPS/CHECK usage in CDS code
  • 7451962: 8129776: The optimized Stream returned from Files.lines should unmap the mapped byte buffer (if created) when closed
  • ... and 75 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/f025bc1d5d81532a3bdb87665537de4aaf15b7ea...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit edd5fc8.

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

Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
3 participants