8319640: ClassicFormat::parseObject (from DateTimeFormatter) does not conform to the javadoc and may leak DateTimeException

[pengxiaolong]

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit fe0ccdf5 from the openjdk/jdk repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Naoto Sato on 13 Nov 2023 and was reviewed by Roger Riggs, Iris Clark, Justin Lu and Joe Wang.

Thanks!

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• JDK-8319640 needs maintainer approval
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8319640: ClassicFormat::parseObject (from DateTimeFormatter) does not conform to the javadoc and may leak DateTimeException (Bug - P4 - Approved)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/1101/head:pull/1101
$ git checkout pull/1101

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1101
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/1101/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1101

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1101

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/pull/1101.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back xpeng! 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]

@pengxiaolong 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:

8319640: ClassicFormat::parseObject (from DateTimeFormatter) does not conform to the javadoc and may leak DateTimeException

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 25 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• ed797f7: 8342578: GHA: RISC-V: Bootstrap using Debian snapshot is still failing
• ec24039: 8340466: Add description for PassFailJFrame constructors
• 83955c9: 8339787: Add some additional diagnostic output to java/net/ipv6tests/UdpTest.java
• d506e23: 8340899: Remove wildcard bound in PositionWindows.positionTestWindows
• 17179fd: 8340684: Reading from an input stream backed by a closed ZipFile has no test coverage
• 97ab46f: 8340365: Position the first window of a window list
• 6ad61fa: 8340461: Amend description for logArea
• 15084f0: 8340308: PassFailJFrame: Make rows default to number of lines in instructions
• ddc42a1: 8340306: Add border around instructions in PassFailJFrame
• 54d8f60: 8338759: Add extra diagnostic to java/net/InetAddress/ptr/Lookup.java
• ... and 15 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/compare/01eb688a001125dedc8c2cf454578aa352cd906a...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.

➡️ 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]

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

[openjdk]

⚠️ @pengxiaolong 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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (32a65ef2)

[pengxiaolong]

/approval request Backport 8319640: ClassicFormat::parseObject (from DateTimeFormatter) does not conform to the javadoc and may leak DateTimeException, applied cleanly, bug fix, overall risk should be low.

[openjdk]

@pengxiaolong
8319640: The approval request has been created successfully.

[GoeLin]

Hi @pengxiaolong, how did you test this backport?

[pengxiaolong]

Hi @pengxiaolong, how did you test this backport?

Hi @GoeLin, the bug itself is easy to reproduce and test, I found it when I was debugging an issue in OpenSearch last year. I have run the new test in jdk/java/time/test/java/time/format/TestDateTimeParsing.java added by Naoto Sato to verify the fix, those tests were designed for this fix.

[pengxiaolong]

Also ran all tests under jdk CONF=linux-x86_64-server-fastdebug make test TEST=jdk/\* JTREG_KEYWORDS=\!headful, totally 9 failures and all were related to print APIs(no printer for the tests).

[pengxiaolong]

Thank you for the review and approval!

/integrate

[openjdk]

@pengxiaolong
Your change (at version 32a65ef) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[phohensee]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit eb8d5fe.
Since your change was applied there have been 25 commits pushed to the master branch:

• ed797f7: 8342578: GHA: RISC-V: Bootstrap using Debian snapshot is still failing
• ec24039: 8340466: Add description for PassFailJFrame constructors
• 83955c9: 8339787: Add some additional diagnostic output to java/net/ipv6tests/UdpTest.java
• d506e23: 8340899: Remove wildcard bound in PositionWindows.positionTestWindows
• 17179fd: 8340684: Reading from an input stream backed by a closed ZipFile has no test coverage
• 97ab46f: 8340365: Position the first window of a window list
• 6ad61fa: 8340461: Amend description for logArea
• 15084f0: 8340308: PassFailJFrame: Make rows default to number of lines in instructions
• ddc42a1: 8340306: Add border around instructions in PassFailJFrame
• 54d8f60: 8338759: Add extra diagnostic to java/net/InetAddress/ptr/Lookup.java
• ... and 15 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/compare/01eb688a001125dedc8c2cf454578aa352cd906a...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@phohensee @pengxiaolong Pushed as commit eb8d5fe.

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