8313394: Array Elements in OldObjectSample event has the incorrect description

[tkiriyama]

Hi all,

I want to backport JDK-8313394 for jdk11u.
This is clean backport.

Would you review and sponsor this fix, please?

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• JDK-8313394 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8313394: Array Elements in OldObjectSample event has the incorrect description (Bug - P4 - Approved)

Reviewers

• Paul Hohensee (@phohensee - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/1899/head:pull/1899
$ git checkout pull/1899

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1899
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/1899/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1899

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1899

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/1899.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back tkiriyama! 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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (edac1870)
• 01: Full - Incremental (a4abcd9a)
• 00: Full (3a44af4f)

[phohensee]

The original commit didn't include a copyright date update, so please reverse that. Otherwise, lgtm.

[tkiriyama]

Thanks! I don't know the rules of the backport, so please tell me it. For backports, does the author not have to update the copyright date to the commit date?

[phohensee]

No. The copyright date is updated only if the original commit (the one being backported) has a copyright date update that's later than the existing one (the one in the backport target file). If the original commit has no copyright date update, the backport should not.

[tkiriyama]

Thank you for your comment. Please let me ask one more question. As you mentioned, in general, modifications should be as same as possible to the original. My concern here is the mismatch between the copyright year and the recent modification year.
I mean, if copyright year remains intact in this PR, one might think that patches introduced in the latest jdk after 2022 were not backported. However, this is not correct because the original patch was applied in 2023.

I haven' found a case where only the backported patch changes the copyright year, so it seems appropriate not to change the copyright year in this case. However, given the above concerns, I'm not sure why this is desirable.
It would be helpful if you could tell me the meaning of the copyright year for the backported patches in detail if you know about it.

[phohensee]

My understanding is that the reason for updating the copyright year in a backport only if the copyright year was updated in the original commit is to maximize clean backports and make it easier to do subsequent backports (there's a lower probability of a copyright date conflict).

@RealCLanger, I can't find the policy on the updates wiki, could you add or point to it please?

[bridgekeeper]

@tkiriyama 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!

[RealCLanger]

My understanding is that the reason for updating the copyright year in a backport only if the copyright year was updated in the original commit is to maximize clean backports and make it easier to do subsequent backports (there's a lower probability of a copyright date conflict).

@RealCLanger, I can't find the policy on the updates wiki, could you add or point to it please?

the guidelines can be found here: https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/JDKUpdates/How+to+contribute+or+backport+a+fix

Don't know if it mentions the policy wrt the copyright years. However, they need not be updated if the change itself didn't modify them. This keeps more backports clean.

For this one, it should be backported to JDK 21u first.

[tkiriyama]

Thank you for letting me know.
I reverted the copyright according to the rules.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[openjdk]

⚠️ @tkiriyama This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[tkiriyama]

/approval request This is clean backport. It fixes only the description attribute of JFR event and the risk is low. Re-submit testing using is passed.

[openjdk]

@tkiriyama
8313394: The approval request has been created successfully.

[GoeLin]

@tkiriyama, please first backport to 21.
I remove the fix-request label in the meantime.

[bridgekeeper]

@tkiriyama 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!

[bridgekeeper]

@tkiriyama This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the /open pull request command.

[tkiriyama]

/open

[openjdk]

@tkiriyama This pull request is now open

[openjdk]

@tkiriyama 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:

8313394: Array Elements in OldObjectSample event has the incorrect description

Reviewed-by: phh

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 615 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• bc5639a: 8325179: Race in BasicDirectoryModel.validateFileCache
• d3c1ad3: 8261433: Better pkcs11 performance for libpkcs11:C_EncryptInit/libpkcs11:C_DecryptInit
• 7bc22f7: 8279164: Disable TLS_ECDH_* cipher suites
• d99641e: 7124313: [macosx] Swing Popups should overlap taskbar
• 92daaf2: 8331885: C2: meet between unloaded and speculative types is not symmetric
• 8414ee3: 8294148: Support JSplitPane for instructions and test UI
• 6910365: 8316104: Open source several Swing SplitPane and RadioButton related tests
• 36384e8: 8323670: A few client tests intermittently throw ConcurrentModificationException
• cda3768: 8326734: text-decoration applied to lost when mixed with or
• bc857cb: 8281944: JavaDoc throws java.lang.IllegalStateException: ERRONEOUS
• ... and 605 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/e80200f3ddaf57fa8a2ccc23222242d0c997bea7...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) 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).

[bridgekeeper]

@tkiriyama 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!

[tkiriyama]

@GoeLin
This fix has been backported to 21.
I create the approval request again.

[tkiriyama]

/approval request This is clean backport. It fixes only the description attribute of JFR event and the risk is low. Re-submit testing using is passed.

[openjdk]

@tkiriyama
8313394: The approval request was already up to date.

[openjdk]

⚠️ @tkiriyama 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 8313394
$ git commit --author='Preferred Full Name <you@example.com>' --allow-empty -m 'Update full name'
$ git push

[tkiriyama]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@tkiriyama
Your change (at version edac187) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[phohensee]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit d953de6.
Since your change was applied there have been 615 commits pushed to the master branch:

• bc5639a: 8325179: Race in BasicDirectoryModel.validateFileCache
• d3c1ad3: 8261433: Better pkcs11 performance for libpkcs11:C_EncryptInit/libpkcs11:C_DecryptInit
• 7bc22f7: 8279164: Disable TLS_ECDH_* cipher suites
• d99641e: 7124313: [macosx] Swing Popups should overlap taskbar
• 92daaf2: 8331885: C2: meet between unloaded and speculative types is not symmetric
• 8414ee3: 8294148: Support JSplitPane for instructions and test UI
• 6910365: 8316104: Open source several Swing SplitPane and RadioButton related tests
• 36384e8: 8323670: A few client tests intermittently throw ConcurrentModificationException
• cda3768: 8326734: text-decoration applied to lost when mixed with or
• bc857cb: 8281944: JavaDoc throws java.lang.IllegalStateException: ERRONEOUS
• ... and 605 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/e80200f3ddaf57fa8a2ccc23222242d0c997bea7...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@phohensee @tkiriyama Pushed as commit d953de6.

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