Skip to content

Conversation

@liach
Copy link
Member

@liach liach commented May 17, 2025

isArray and null return is now redundant when componentType is changed to an explicit field.


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-8357178: Simplify Class::componentType (Enhancement - P5)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25280/head:pull/25280
$ git checkout pull/25280

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25280
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25280/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25280

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25280

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25280.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented May 17, 2025

👋 Welcome back liach! 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 May 17, 2025

@liach 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:

8357178: Simplify Class::componentType

Reviewed-by: rriggs

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 117 new commits pushed to the master branch:

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 rfr Pull request is ready for review label May 17, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented May 17, 2025

@liach 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 May 17, 2025
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented May 17, 2025

Webrevs

@Override
public Class<?> componentType() {
return isArray() ? componentType : null;
return componentType;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did you consider calling getComponentType(), which already returns the field?

Are there regression tests for Class::componentType()/Class::getComponentType() somewhere? I didn't see them in the obvious test/jdk/java/lang/Class directory.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did you consider calling getComponentType(), which already returns the field?

I don't think we want an extra indirection here - The logic here is quite simple. Counterargument could be that MethodType::descriptorString calls toMethodDescriptorString, except these methods involve more complex caching and is not simple like this field access.

Are there regression tests for Class::componentType()/Class::getComponentType() somewhere? I didn't see them in the obvious test/jdk/java/lang/Class directory.

They are located in test/jdk/java/lang/constant/TypeDescriptorTest.java.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did you consider calling getComponentType(), which already returns the field?

I don't think we want an extra indirection here - The logic here is quite simple. Counterargument could be that MethodType::descriptorString calls toMethodDescriptorString, except these methods involve more complex caching and is not simple like this field access.

My mental model anyway is that this trivial inline would be something the VM would do readily.

@minborg
Copy link
Contributor

minborg commented May 19, 2025

Question: Why was this overload added in the first place, as it seems equivalent to getComponentType()?

@liach
Copy link
Member Author

liach commented May 19, 2025

@minborg It implements a method in TypeDescriptor.OfField.

@liach
Copy link
Member Author

liach commented May 22, 2025

Can anyone review this simple cleanup?

Copy link
Contributor

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label May 23, 2025
@liach
Copy link
Member Author

liach commented May 23, 2025

Thanks for the reviews!

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented May 23, 2025

Going to push as commit 070c84c.
Since your change was applied there have been 124 commits pushed to the master branch:

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label May 23, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this May 23, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels May 23, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented May 23, 2025

@liach Pushed as commit 070c84c.

💡 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.

4 participants