8275293: A change done with JDK-8268764 mismatches the java.rmi.server.ObjID.hashCode spec

[stsypanov]

It looks like we cannot use Long.hashCode(long) for java.rmi.server.ObjID.hashCode() due to specification: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.rmi/java/rmi/server/ObjID.html#hashCode().

---

Progress

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

Issue

• JDK-8275293: A change done with JDK-8268764 mismatches the java.rmi.server.ObjID.hashCode spec

Reviewers

• Roger Riggs (@RogerRiggs - Reviewer)
• Stuart Marks (@stuart-marks - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5963/head:pull/5963
$ git checkout pull/5963

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/5963
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5963/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 5963

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 5963

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5963.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back stsypanov! 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.

[stsypanov]

@stuart-marks FYI

[openjdk]

@stsypanov 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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (b5c2ad0e)

[pavelrappo]

It's important to be precise here: it's not "JavaDoc", it's the specification.

[stsypanov]

@pavelrappo you are right. I've reworded the description

[openjdk]

⚠️ @stsypanov the full name on your profile does not match the author name in this pull requests' HEAD commit. If this pull request gets integrated then the author name from this pull requests' HEAD commit will be used for the resulting commit. If you wish to push a new commit with a different author name, then please run the following commands in a local repository of your personal fork:

$ git checkout 8275293
$ git commit -c user.name='Preferred Full Name' --allow-empty -m 'Update full name'
$ git push

[openjdk]

@stsypanov 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:

8275293: A change done with JDK-8268764 mismatches the java.rmi.server.ObjID.hashCode spec

Reviewed-by: rriggs, 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 123 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• c94dc2a: 8272854: split runtime/CommandLine/PrintTouchedMethods.java test
• fec470f: 8272163: Add -version option to keytool and jarsigner
• 6523c55: 8198336: java/awt/FontMetrics/FontCrash.java fails in headless mode
• 88bbf3c: 8273111: Default timezone should return zone ID if /etc/localtime is valid but not canonicalization on linux
• 4dec8fc: 8275645: [JVMCI] avoid unaligned volatile reads on AArch64
• 4e647aa: 8275416: G1: remove unnecessary make_referent_alive in precleaning phase
• dd622e5: 8275783: G1: fix incorrect region type documentation in HeapRegionType
• b2128a9: 8263155: Allow additional contents for DMG
• 1efe946: 8275712: Hashtable literal_size functions are broken
• fab3d6c: 8275761: Backout: JDK-8274794 Print all owned locks in hs_err file
• ... and 113 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/c355704a4b3d376b5429daba1576442b575f41ea...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 (@RogerRiggs, @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).

[stsypanov]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@stsypanov
Your change (at version b5c2ad0) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[stuart-marks]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 5bbe4ca.
Since your change was applied there have been 123 commits pushed to the master branch:

• c94dc2a: 8272854: split runtime/CommandLine/PrintTouchedMethods.java test
• fec470f: 8272163: Add -version option to keytool and jarsigner
• 6523c55: 8198336: java/awt/FontMetrics/FontCrash.java fails in headless mode
• 88bbf3c: 8273111: Default timezone should return zone ID if /etc/localtime is valid but not canonicalization on linux
• 4dec8fc: 8275645: [JVMCI] avoid unaligned volatile reads on AArch64
• 4e647aa: 8275416: G1: remove unnecessary make_referent_alive in precleaning phase
• dd622e5: 8275783: G1: fix incorrect region type documentation in HeapRegionType
• b2128a9: 8263155: Allow additional contents for DMG
• 1efe946: 8275712: Hashtable literal_size functions are broken
• fab3d6c: 8275761: Backout: JDK-8274794 Print all owned locks in hs_err file
• ... and 113 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/c355704a4b3d376b5429daba1576442b575f41ea...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@stuart-marks @stsypanov Pushed as commit 5bbe4ca.

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

[mrserb]

Just a suggestion, it is always a good thing to add a jtreg test case, especially if it is regression.

[stuart-marks]

Oh yes, good point in general. In this case the problem was caught by the failure of a JCK test, so I don't think a separate regression test is necessary. I've added the noreg-jck label to the bug to indicate this.

[mrserb]

I think this one was missed due to the absence of the coverage in the jtreg test suite, and some people have no access to the jck to run it in advance.

[mlbridge]

Mailing list message from Joseph D. Darcy on core-libs-dev:

It is a non-goal to replicate all of the JCK test coverage in the
regression test suite.

-Joe

On 10/25/2021 7:17 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: