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

8266598: Exception values for AnnotationTypeMismatchException are not always informative #3892

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@raphw
Copy link
Member

@raphw raphw commented May 5, 2021

This improves the messages that are provided by AnnotationTypeMismatchExceptions. The message provided by AnnotationTypeMismatchExceptions is deliberately undefined such that this should not break any contract.


Progress

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

Issue

  • JDK-8266598: Exception values for AnnotationTypeMismatchException are not always informative

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3892/head:pull/3892
$ git checkout pull/3892

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3892
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3892/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3892

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3892

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3892.diff

@raphw raphw changed the title Exception values for AnnotationTypeMismatchException are not always informative 8266598: Exception values for AnnotationTypeMismatchException are not always informative May 5, 2021
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented May 5, 2021

👋 Welcome back winterhalter! 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 May 5, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented May 5, 2021

@raphw 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 May 5, 2021
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented May 5, 2021

Loading

Copy link
Member

@jddarcy jddarcy left a comment

Please add 8266598 to the @bug lines of the regression tests.

Loading

@raphw raphw force-pushed the 8266598 branch 2 times, most recently from 57ab372 to 9acdb5d May 8, 2021
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 5, 2021

@raphw This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

Loading

@raphw
Copy link
Member Author

@raphw raphw commented Jun 6, 2021

Commenting on PR to avoid closing it, as it is still under review.

Loading

@jbf
Copy link
Member

@jbf jbf commented Jun 9, 2021

Loading

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
/*
* @test
* @bug 8228988
* @bug 8266598
Copy link
Member

@jbf jbf Jun 9, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bug numbers are usually on the same line: "* @bug 8228988 8266598"

Loading

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
/*
* @test
* @bug 8228988
* @bug 8266598
Copy link
Member

@jbf jbf Jun 9, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same, here, single line

Loading

@raphw
Copy link
Member Author

@raphw raphw commented Jun 9, 2021

Moved the bug number to the same line on both tests.

Loading

jbf
jbf approved these changes Jun 9, 2021
Copy link
Member

@jbf jbf left a comment

LGTM

Loading

@jbf
Copy link
Member

@jbf jbf commented Jun 9, 2021

/csr

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 9, 2021

@raphw 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:

8266598: Exception values for AnnotationTypeMismatchException are not always informative

Reviewed-by: jfranck

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 512 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 13d6180: 8264859: Implement Context-Specific Deserialization Filters
  • dd34a4c: 8268372: ZGC: dynamically select the number of concurrent GC threads used
  • 4388959: 8268056: Update java.net and java.nio to use switch expressions
  • 9cfd560: 8267663: [vector] Add unsigned comparison operators on AArch64
  • 4413142: 8268017: C2: assert(phi_type->isa_int() || phi_type->isa_ptr() || phi_type->isa_long()) failed: bad phi type
  • 2bfd708: 8266557: assert(SafepointMechanism::local_poll_armed(_handshakee)) failed: Must be
  • 4d1cf51: 8240349: jlink should not leave partial image output directory on failure
  • 07108c9: 8268241: deprecate JVM TI Heap functions 1.0
  • c9dbc4f: 8266891: Provide a switch to force the class space to a specific location
  • 2cc1977: 8268424: JFR tests fail due to GC cause 'G1 Preventive Collection' not in the valid causes after JDK-8257774
  • ... and 502 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/138d573c3567e9a51b1ac2b1de89b41c4b51ae93...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 (@jddarcy, @jbf) 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 Jun 9, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 9, 2021

@jbf the issue for this pull request, JDK-8266598, already has an approved CSR request: JDK-8266768

Loading

@raphw
Copy link
Member Author

@raphw raphw commented Jun 9, 2021

/integrate

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor label Jun 9, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 9, 2021

@raphw
Your change (at version 064334c) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

Loading

@jbf
Copy link
Member

@jbf jbf commented Jun 9, 2021

/sponsor

Loading

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

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Jun 9, 2021

@jbf @raphw Since your change was applied there have been 512 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 13d6180: 8264859: Implement Context-Specific Deserialization Filters
  • dd34a4c: 8268372: ZGC: dynamically select the number of concurrent GC threads used
  • 4388959: 8268056: Update java.net and java.nio to use switch expressions
  • 9cfd560: 8267663: [vector] Add unsigned comparison operators on AArch64
  • 4413142: 8268017: C2: assert(phi_type->isa_int() || phi_type->isa_ptr() || phi_type->isa_long()) failed: bad phi type
  • 2bfd708: 8266557: assert(SafepointMechanism::local_poll_armed(_handshakee)) failed: Must be
  • 4d1cf51: 8240349: jlink should not leave partial image output directory on failure
  • 07108c9: 8268241: deprecate JVM TI Heap functions 1.0
  • c9dbc4f: 8266891: Provide a switch to force the class space to a specific location
  • 2cc1977: 8268424: JFR tests fail due to GC cause 'G1 Preventive Collection' not in the valid causes after JDK-8257774
  • ... and 502 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/138d573c3567e9a51b1ac2b1de89b41c4b51ae93...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 7b1e402.

💡 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