On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 22:42:34 GMT, Phil Race <[email protected]> wrote:

>> This fix updates DataBuffer subclasses to actually adhere to their stated 
>> specifications by rejecting certain invalid parameters for constructors and 
>> getters and setters.
>> A new egression test for each of the constructor and getter/setter cases is 
>> supplied.
>> 
>> No existing regression tests fail with this change, and standard demos work.
>> 
>> Problems caused by these changes are most likely to occur if the client has 
>> a bug such that 
>> - a client uses the constructors that accept an array and then supplies a 
>> "size" that is greater than the array.
>> - a client uses the constructors that accept an array and then supplies a 
>> "size" that is less than the array and then uses getter/setters that are 
>> within the array but outside the range specified by size. 
>> 
>> Since very few clients (and just one case in the JDK that I found) even use 
>> these array constructors the changes are unlikely to make a difference to 
>> clients.
>> 
>> The CSR is ready for review https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8378116
>
> Phil Race has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   8377568

Change looks good to me apart from an observation made about merging @throws 
specification.

src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/image/DataBufferByte.java line 214:

> 212:      * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code size} is less than or 
> equal to zero.
> 213:      * @throws NullPointerException if {@code dataArray} is {@code null}.
> 214:      * @throws NullPointerException if any bank of {@code dataArray} is 
> {@code null}.

We can merge NPE spec into single comment:
`@throws NullPointerException if {@code dataArray} or any of its bank is {@code 
null}.`

Similar observation is made in other classes also.

-------------

Marked as reviewed by jdv (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29766#pullrequestreview-3989490014
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29766#discussion_r2973010386

Reply via email to