Hi Joel, Paul, A coworker ran into the change of behavior here in jdk9. Specifically, we noticed that a local class constructor has a receiver parameter, but getAnnotatedReceiverType returns null. The changed jdk9 spec is actually very clear about that:
http://download.java.net/java/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Constructor.html#getAnnotatedReceiverType-- """If this Executable object represents a static method or represents a constructor of a top level, static member, local, or anonymous class, then the return value is null.""" BUT we can't think of any reason WHY a local inner class would be treated differently from an inner member class. Why not the simple and obvious rule: if there is a receiver parameter, return an appropriate non-null AnnotatedType? You already have an excellent jtreg test, but here's what I was playing with: import java.lang.reflect.Constructor; public class LocalClassReceiverTypeBug { public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable { class StaticLocal {} printConstructor(StaticLocal.class); new LocalClassReceiverTypeBug().instanceMain(); } public void instanceMain() throws Throwable { class InstanceLocal {} printConstructor(InstanceLocal.class); printConstructor(Inner.class); printConstructor(Nested.class); } static class Nested {} class Inner {} static void printConstructor(Class<?> klazz) { Constructor<?>[] constructors = klazz.getDeclaredConstructors(); if (constructors.length != 1) throw new AssertionError(); System.out.printf("constructor=%s%n", constructors[0]); System.out.printf("receiver type=%s%n", constructors[0].getAnnotatedReceiverType()); } } On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Joel Borggren-Franck < joel.fra...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 2014-06-24, Paul Sandoz wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Joel Borggrén-Franck < > joel.fra...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > Can I get a review for this fix and javadoc clarification for > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044629 > > > > > > > +1 > > > > I never quite realised just how convoluted it was to determine that a > class is an inner class. > > Neither did I until I had to implement it :) > > cheers > /Joel >
