On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:28:57 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> > It was implemented in a way to minimize the difference between different >>> > 'stopClasses' for the same object. In the example above, the next call >>> > will produce the same properties: >>> > ... >>> > Thus, the methods of the current class have some priority over those of >>> > the parent class. >>> > But if the same class has multiple setFoo(xxx) methods, the behavior will >>> > be undefined/unspecified. >>> >>> Currently, I see from `PropertyInfo` implementation that methods are just >>> sorted by argument's type name if arguments are not assignable from each >>> other. So, in case `Long` vs `Number`, `Long` will be chosen >>> (`isAssignable()` check works); in case `Float` vs `Integer`, `Float` will >>> be chosen (sorted by type name). >> >> There is "test/jdk/java/beans/Introspector/TestMethodOrderDependence.java" >> which was added to prevent accidental change in the implementation, but part >> of the behavior is undefined/unspecified. >> >>>If no docs, could you review the test cases below, please? Is it correct, or >>>redundant, or incomplete? I will add them to the test when OK. >> >> New tests are always welcome, especially for interfaces, as they are a >> relatively new feature. > >> @mrserb If I reverse sorting order, or remove sorting at all, 2 tests are >> failed - OverloadedSetter and TestMethodOrderDependence. So it doesn't look >> an utility wrapper, as 2 tests rely on the sorting order. Or am I mistaken? > > I meant to delete the next code you added in the > [MethodInfo.java](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23443/files#diff-2b692928e718b6c457a50aac719ae8b1ace8a2cb2426428fca14c67035e78080): > > if (a.isDefault() != b.isDefault()) { > return a.isDefault() ? -1 : 1; // default methods go first > } > > and update the logic for read/write in the > [PropertyInfo.java#initialize](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23443/files#diff-ef0d6cd4a6177670eb9196da7ac4d67d1eddef222aadbfbf49075e74395fe9bbL73) > to get the same result. @mrserb I updated PR, could you review? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23443#issuecomment-2687539682
