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

8284640: CollectorImpl class could be a record class #8179

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

altrisi
Copy link
Contributor

@altrisi altrisi commented Apr 11, 2022

Changes the definition of CollectorImpl to be a record.


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-8284640: CollectorImpl class could be a record class

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/8179/head:pull/8179
$ git checkout pull/8179

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/8179
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/8179/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 8179

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 8179

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/8179.diff

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot added the oca Needs verification of OCA signatory status label Apr 11, 2022
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 11, 2022

Hi @altrisi, welcome to this OpenJDK project and thanks for contributing!

We do not recognize you as Contributor and need to ensure you have signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA). If you have not signed the OCA, please follow the instructions. Please fill in your GitHub username in the "Username" field of the application. Once you have signed the OCA, please let us know by writing /signed in a comment in this pull request.

If you already are an OpenJDK Author, Committer or Reviewer, please click here to open a new issue so that we can record that fact. Please use "Add GitHub user altrisi" as summary for the issue.

If you are contributing this work on behalf of your employer and your employer has signed the OCA, please let us know by writing /covered in a comment in this pull request.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 11, 2022

@altrisi 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 Apr 11, 2022
@altrisi
Copy link
Contributor Author

altrisi commented Apr 11, 2022

/signed

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot added the oca-verify Needs verification of OCA signatory status label Apr 11, 2022
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 11, 2022

Thank you! Please allow for up to two weeks to process your OCA, although it is usually done within one to two business days. Also, please note that pull requests that are pending an OCA check will not usually be evaluated, so your patience is appreciated!

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot removed oca Needs verification of OCA signatory status oca-verify Needs verification of OCA signatory status labels Apr 27, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Apr 27, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Apr 27, 2022

Webrevs

@liach
Copy link
Member

liach commented May 21, 2022

@stuart-marks Mind review this simple cleanup?

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 18, 2022

@altrisi 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!

@altrisi
Copy link
Contributor Author

altrisi commented Jun 27, 2022

Hi, is this small PR missing anything in order to be reviewed? Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@phohensee phohensee 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
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2022

@altrisi 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:

8284640: CollectorImpl class could be a record class

Reviewed-by: phh, 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 1099 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 88fe19c: 8289071: Compute allocation sizes of stubs and nmethods outside of lock protection
  • d4eeeb8: 8271252: os::reserve_memory should not use mtOther as default NMT flag
  • 549c6c2: 8287818: Shenandoah: adapt nmethod arming from Loom
  • aa43824: 8289138: G1: Remove redundant is-marking-active checks in C1 barrier
  • b4ab5fe: 8288396: Always create reproducible builds
  • 3336971: 8289258: ProblemList some failing custom loader tests with ZGC
  • 784fa0a: 8282036: Change java/util/zip/ZipFile/DeleteTempJar.java to stop HttpServer cleanly in case of exceptions
  • ca78f7b: 8286259: Password cleanup after KeyStore.PasswordProtection in P11KeyStore
  • e322e77: 8288651: CDS test HelloUnload.java should not use literal string as ClassLoader name
  • 40bf3b1: 8288993: Make AwtFramePackTest generic by removing @requires tag
  • ... and 1089 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f4edb59a6e44d99ba215ee6970ffa6fb26b4798c...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 (@phohensee, @RogerRiggs) 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).

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jun 28, 2022
@altrisi
Copy link
Contributor Author

altrisi commented Jun 28, 2022

Thanks for the review!
/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Jun 28, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2022

@altrisi
Your change (at version 7d8b40b) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@phohensee
Copy link
Member

I believe we need another reviewer (doesn't have to be a capital-Reviewer). I'll sponsor after that.

@phohensee
Copy link
Member

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2022

Going to push as commit af00880.
Since your change was applied there have been 1101 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • c67149b: 8288961: jpackage: test MSI installation fix
  • 1f36ed1: 8288013: jpackage: test utility Windows registry enhancement
  • 88fe19c: 8289071: Compute allocation sizes of stubs and nmethods outside of lock protection
  • d4eeeb8: 8271252: os::reserve_memory should not use mtOther as default NMT flag
  • 549c6c2: 8287818: Shenandoah: adapt nmethod arming from Loom
  • aa43824: 8289138: G1: Remove redundant is-marking-active checks in C1 barrier
  • b4ab5fe: 8288396: Always create reproducible builds
  • 3336971: 8289258: ProblemList some failing custom loader tests with ZGC
  • 784fa0a: 8282036: Change java/util/zip/ZipFile/DeleteTempJar.java to stop HttpServer cleanly in case of exceptions
  • ca78f7b: 8286259: Password cleanup after KeyStore.PasswordProtection in P11KeyStore
  • ... and 1091 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f4edb59a6e44d99ba215ee6970ffa6fb26b4798c...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jun 28, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jun 28, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jun 28, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Jun 28, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2022

@phohensee @altrisi Pushed as commit af00880.

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

@simonis
Copy link
Member

simonis commented Jun 28, 2022

Hi @RogerRiggs,

Thanks for reviewing this PR. I have a more general question. Do we have any recommendations about using new language features in the core libraries?

Thanks,
Volker

@altrisi altrisi deleted the collectorimp-record branch June 28, 2022 17:41
@RogerRiggs
Copy link
Contributor

For some new features, its an obvious yes, though personally, it should add some value to the code, not just churn the code base to be up-to-date.

Also, there is quite a bit of core code that is sensitive to bootstrap and startup performance regressions.
And occasionally it makes backports harder, though that's not a reason to be stuck with old APIs.

Using preview features can also be a mixed bag. The dependencies and warnings about using preview features can break the build and they are not always such an improvement to suppress the warnings and have to come back later to remove or redo the code.

Some parts of the system (like javac) have to be compiled with the previous JDK, so no new features.

Use new feature judiciously, meaning think broadly about the impact across the code base, not just a bit of code here and there.

@RogerRiggs
Copy link
Contributor

I see this one languished quite a while without a review. Sorry about that; for the uninteresting, maybe it really is insufficiently interesting to even pursue except as a starter issue.

@phohensee
Copy link
Member

I assumed it was a starter issue in order to learn the patch process.

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
5 participants