8214046: [macosx] Undecorated Frame does not Iconify when set to

[gesellix]

See https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8214046 with the original patch at https://hg.openjdk.org/jdk/jdk/rev/769dbf384c44. I used openjdk/jdk11u-dev@ab97f65 as backport commit.

---

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-8214046: [macosx] Undecorated Frame does not Iconify when set to (Bug - P2)

Reviewers

• Paul Hohensee (@phohensee - Reviewer)
• Sergey Bylokhov (@mrserb - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/341/head:pull/341
$ git checkout pull/341

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/341
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/341/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 341

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 341

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/341.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

Hi @gesellix, 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 gesellix" 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]

⚠️ @gesellix a branch with the same name as the source branch for this pull request (master) is present in the target repository. If you eventually integrate this pull request then the branch master in your personal fork will diverge once you sync your personal fork with the upstream repository.

To avoid this situation, create a new branch for your changes and reset the master branch. You can do this by running the following commands in a local repository for your personal fork. Note: you do not have to name the new branch NEW-BRANCH-NAME.

$ git checkout -b NEW-BRANCH-NAME
$ git branch -f master 4dc1305cafe7913b194e9a8ebc01c49e6dc14a6d
$ git push -f origin master

Then proceed to create a new pull request with NEW-BRANCH-NAME as the source branch and close this one.

[gesellix]

/signed

[bridgekeeper]

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!

[openjdk]

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

[gesellix]

Hey @openjdk bot: I would prefer to not change the source branch like you suggested in #341 (comment), I hope that's ok for you.

[mrserb]

I suggest to delete all the "added code" which are not part of the initial patch (mostly changes of the empty spaces). That will simplify a process a bit.

[openjdk]

@gesellix Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

[gesellix]

@mrserb thanks for the quick feedback. I have removed the whitespace only changes.

[mrserb]

lets wait when the "oca oca-verify" will be removed.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (77b7b1d6)
• 00: Full (16adbd38)

[phohensee]

Also, please enable pre-submit testing on your repo.

[gesellix]

The pre-submit workflow has been enabled, and passed.

[gesellix]

I think this can be reviewed. Is there anything to do from my side?

[openjdk]

@gesellix This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8214046: [macosx] Undecorated Frame does not Iconify when set to

Reviewed-by: phh, serb

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 no new commits pushed to the master branch. If another commit should be pushed before you perform the /integrate command, your PR will be automatically rebased. If you prefer to avoid any potential 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, @mrserb) 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).

[phohensee]

Please rebase (i.e., merge with master). That should trigger pre-submit tests.

[mrserb]

I will run the tests to check that some dependencies are not missed.

[gesellix]

/integrate

[gesellix]

Sounds great, so I'm going to rebase, ignoring #341 (comment) and maybe invalidating Paul's approval.

Not sure if any of you could check for the newly created JI bug id 9075585 and close it as duplicate of JDK-8214046. I assumed that a new bug would be required due to JDK-8214046 being "resolved".

[openjdk]

@gesellix Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

[gesellix]

The GitHub Actions have finished the pre-submit tests with success 🎉

[phohensee]

Tagged the JBS issue. Please post a link to the bug you created when it hits JBS.

[mrserb]

The testing completed no new issues were found. The patch verified by the updated test.

[gesellix]

This is now pending a jdk8u-fix-yes tag on the bug ticket, but nothing to be done by myself, right? I'll wait this time with any integrate commands :)
The other ticket created by me is hopefully not blocking anything? I'll post the JBS link here as soon as I get it.

[phohensee]

Yes, wait for jdk8u-fix-yes to add /integrate. No, the other ticket isn't blocking anything. :)

[gesellix]

@phohensee @mrserb not sure if this is the best place to ask: when looking at https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/jdk8u#Main-RepositoryStatus I can see that OpenJDK 8u392 is in "First build promotion". Would this fix have a chance to be included in 8u392 or is it more realistic that it will land in 8u402?

[phohensee]

According to https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/jdk8u/Main, 8u392 freeze date is Aug 25th, so I'd expect it to land there.

[gesellix]

According to https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/jdk8u/Main, 8u392 freeze date is Aug 25th, so I'd expect it to land there.

Thanks! 🤞 :)

[gesellix]

Here is the promised JBS link: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313704
It's already closed - thanks @mrserb.

According to https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313704?focusedCommentId=14601715&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14601715 the fix is already backported to 8u261 (via https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8241728), and I'd like to add that 8u271 should also have the backport (via https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8248969).
Yet, I don't know why the fix isn't part of the main branch of openjdk/jdk8u-dev. I'm curious if there's a specfic reason or if the commit simply slipped through. Is 8u271 different from openjdk8u271?

Sorry for bothering you, I'm not sure how much happens behind the scenes, and you probably also have non-public channels. I'm only trying to understand how to apply the backport so that it will be included in future 8uXYZ releases :)

[jerboaa]

Yet, I don't know why the fix isn't part of the main branch of openjdk/jdk8u-dev. I'm curious if there's a specfic reason or if the commit simply slipped through. Is 8u271 different from openjdk8u271?

Yes. 8u271 is Oracle JDK 8u271. openjdk8u271 would be the corresponding OpenJDK 8u bug version. It isn't fixed in OpenJDK 8u, though, as you note. See the master bug https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8214046 (specifically the "Backports" section and "Fixed in Version" values).

[gesellix]

Thanks, that clarifies things for me!

[gesellix]

...that said, the jdk8u-fix-yes is now set, so I'll try again to let the fix being integrated. 🎉

[gesellix]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@gesellix
Your change (at version 77b7b1d) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[phohensee]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit a039c8a.

[openjdk]

@phohensee @gesellix Pushed as commit a039c8a.

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

[gesellix]

Thanks to everyone involved and helping me with the Contributing process!