JDK-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs #9912

jddarcy · 2022-08-18T05:05:33Z

Spec refinement, including acting on some feedback received for JDK-8266670:

#7445 (comment)

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-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs

Reviewers

Alan Bateman (@AlanBateman - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9912/head:pull/9912
$ git checkout pull/9912

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/9912
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9912/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 9912

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 9912

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9912.diff

bridgekeeper · 2022-08-18T05:07:34Z

👋 Welcome back darcy! 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 · 2022-08-18T05:09:48Z

@jddarcy 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 · 2022-08-18T05:13:37Z

Webrevs

01: Full - Incremental (74940784)
00: Full (ad8470fe)

AlanBateman · 2022-08-18T06:56:53Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/module/ModuleDescriptor.java

@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ public Set<Modifier> modifiers() {

        /**
         * {@return an unmodifiable set of the module {@linkplain AccessFlag
-         * requires flags, possibly empty}}
+         * requires flags}, possibly empty}


The link fix looks okay but the wording in the new accessFlags() method is different to the wording in the other methods. The other methods use "possibly-empty unmodifiable" in the return description. Either is fine but I think we should try to keep the wording consistent where possible.

I've looked over the wording of the various accessFlags methods. The wording for ModuleDescriptor.Requires looks consistent to me:

Returns an unmodifiable set of the module flags, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the module export flags for this module descriptor, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the module opens flags, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the module requires flags, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for this class, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for the executable represented by this object, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for this member, possibly empty.

Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for the parameter represented by this object, possibly empty.

Am I overlooking something in the twisty passages, all alike?

If you compare the javadoc for the modifiers vs. accessFlags in each of ModuleDescriptor, Requires, Exports, and Opens then you'll see what I mean. I was hoping they could be consistent.

If you compare the javadoc for the modifiers vs. accessFlags in each of ModuleDescriptor, Requires, Exports, and Opens then you'll see what I mean. I was hoping they could be consistent.

Ah, okay. Pushed docs updated as suggested for consistency within ModuleDescriptor.java.

openjdk · 2022-08-19T07:24:15Z

@jddarcy 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:

8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs

Reviewed-by: alanb

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 11 new commits pushed to the master branch:

2edd550: 8292312: Work around memset() called operator new
964aac2: 8292499: CDS ArchivedEnumTest.java fails: object points to a static field that may be reinitialized
f85411f: 8292458: Atomic operations on scoped enums don't build with clang
82dbe29: 8292633: runtime/cds/appcds/dynamicArchive/CDSStreamTestDriver.java fails to compile
54ce114: 6587699: Document DigestInputStream behavior when skip() or mark() / reset() is used
a1df2da: 8292632: compiler/sharedstubs/SharedTrampolineTest.java fails with "Error: VM option 'PrintRelocations' is develop and is available only in debug version of VM."
1b756bf: 8236048: Cleanup use of Utils.normalizeNewlines
97e2689: 8288121: [JVMCI] Re-export the TerminatingThreadLocal functionality to the graal compiler.
833bf06: 8292608: [AIX] Broken build after 8291945
62a7fc6: 8292315: Tests should not rely on specific JAR file names (hotspot)
... and 1 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f567fa0fd53c519cdda1da8a7aaa0df895abc6e9...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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

jddarcy · 2022-08-19T15:54:35Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2022-08-19T15:56:23Z

Going to push as commit 58aae34.
Since your change was applied there have been 17 commits pushed to the master branch:

5ca268c: 8292636: (dc) Problem listing of java/nio/channels/DatagramChannel/Unref.java has incorrect issue ID
37aa7c1: 8292559: Add test for -XX:+CheckJNICalls showing changed signal handlers
f2f0cd8: 8292511: AArch64: Align CPU feature name for NEON with hwcap
1f484da: 8289562: Change bugs.java.com and bugreport.java.com URL's to https
63a126a: 8292607: Remove unused dirty and dirty_card_range_after_reset in CardTable
7d18ebd: 8292606: G1 and Epsilon header cleanup for JDK-8282729
2edd550: 8292312: Work around memset() called operator new
964aac2: 8292499: CDS ArchivedEnumTest.java fails: object points to a static field that may be reinitialized
f85411f: 8292458: Atomic operations on scoped enums don't build with clang
82dbe29: 8292633: runtime/cds/appcds/dynamicArchive/CDSStreamTestDriver.java fails to compile
... and 7 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f567fa0fd53c519cdda1da8a7aaa0df895abc6e9...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2022-08-19T15:56:36Z

@jddarcy Pushed as commit 58aae34.

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

JDK-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs

ad8470f

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Aug 18, 2022

openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Aug 18, 2022

AlanBateman reviewed Aug 18, 2022

View reviewed changes

jddarcy added 2 commits August 18, 2022 09:33

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8292576

7ce3edc

Respond to review feedback.

7494078

AlanBateman approved these changes Aug 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot closed this Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Aug 19, 2022

jddarcy deleted the JDK-8292576 branch October 27, 2024 18:32

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

JDK-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs #9912

JDK-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs #9912

jddarcy commented Aug 18, 2022 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 18, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 18, 2022

mlbridge bot commented Aug 18, 2022 •

edited

Loading

AlanBateman Aug 18, 2022

jddarcy Aug 18, 2022

AlanBateman Aug 18, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jddarcy Aug 18, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 19, 2022

jddarcy commented Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 19, 2022

JDK-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs #9912

JDK-8292576: Improve wording of AccessFlag-related specs #9912

Conversation

jddarcy commented Aug 18, 2022 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 18, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 18, 2022

mlbridge bot commented Aug 18, 2022 • edited Loading

Webrevs

AlanBateman Aug 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jddarcy Aug 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlanBateman Aug 18, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jddarcy Aug 18, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Aug 19, 2022

jddarcy commented Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 19, 2022

openjdk bot commented Aug 19, 2022

jddarcy commented Aug 18, 2022 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Aug 18, 2022 •

edited

Loading

AlanBateman Aug 18, 2022 •

edited

Loading