On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:43:36 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 23:13:00 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>As far as I understand you can manually create "artificial" zip files which
>can be processed by the zip tool and previous versions of the JDK but not by
>new ones.
It can be processed by the new/latest version of JDK8.
> As long as
The test helper which spawn new jvms is updated to start them using VM flags
for testing.
-
Commit messages:
- 8314330: java/foreign tests should respect vm flags when start new processes
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15302/files
Webrev:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:43:36 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 21:42:41 GMT, Christoph wrote:
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:38:41 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Did you create that zip file manually or was it created by a tool and if by a
> tool than which one? I think we must differentiate here between functional
> compatibility with a tool like "zip", compatibility with a specification and
>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:05:16 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> I have provided a test.zip file above which passed the zip integrity test via
> "zip -T" and can be unzip w/o errors, but rejected by the openjdk. That zip
> was created based on the actual specification, and not on the wiki.
Did you
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:43:36 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:56:09 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>This seems to be a very "free" interpretation of the specification to me.
>According to my understanding, the valid sizes of 8, 16, 24 or 28 as described
>in the Wikipedia article are a direct consequence of the specification.
I have
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14408
Christoph
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 20:41:03 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Christoph has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove obsolete jimage and decompile methods
>
> test/jdk/tools/jlink/dedup/src/m4/p4/Main.java line 35:
>
>> 33:
>> 34:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 20:03:46 GMT, Christoph wrote:
>> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
>> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>>
>> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
>> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>>
>> Follow up task
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14408
Christoph
A field `char mAttrIdx` in the `jdk.internal.util.xml.impl.Attrs` class is
unused and can be removed.
-
Commit messages:
- [PATCH] Remove unused field jdk.internal.util.xml.impl.Attrs.mAttrIdx
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15298/files
Webrev:
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14408
Christoph
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 19:51:44 GMT, Christoph wrote:
>> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
>> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>>
>> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
>> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>>
>> Follow up task
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 19:54:41 GMT, Christoph wrote:
>> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
>> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>>
>> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
>> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>>
>> Follow up task
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14408
Christoph
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14408
Christoph
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 19:13:31 GMT, Christoph wrote:
>> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
>> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>>
>> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
>> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>>
>> Follow up task
> Reduces excessive allocation of Matcher.groups array when the original
> Pattern has no groups or less than 9 groups.
>
> Original clamping to 10 possibly due to documented behavior from javadoc:
> "In this class, \1 through \9 are always interpreted as back references, "
>
> Only with
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:54:05 GMT, Cristian Vat wrote:
>> Shouldn't the similar change be in `CIBackRef.match` too? The fact current
>> tests do not catch it makes me uneasy: the test coverage seems to be rather
>> low there.
>>
>> We need a regex expert to look at it. @rgiulietti @igraves
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 22:07:32 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Since the batch size is 1, I would suggest that `p4.Main` can also load
> `jdk.internal.module.SystemModules$all` and verify the expected numbers of
> `subX` methods (one per each module). To find all modules in the image, you
> can
> Add new test case with sample modules that contains some
> requires/exports/uses/provides.
>
> We are just unsure if and how we should add some last step of verificaiton
> with the extracted and decompiled class.
>
> Follow up task from https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14408
Christoph
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:22:00 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Lance Andersen has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revise retrieval of jdk.util.zip.disableZip64ExtraFieldValidation and
>> tweak a comment
>
>
> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
> encountered when opening select APK, ZIP or JAR files. Please see refer to
> the
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:34:19 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> Cristian Vat has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> changes and test for CIBackRef
>
> The change looks good.
> However, I'm not a Reviewer.
This looks good to
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:13:16 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Reworked similar to above.
>
>> Reworked similar to above.
>
> Thanks. Related is that there aren't tests in this PR that run with
> -Djdk.util.zip.disableZip64ExtraFieldValidation and
>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:41:35 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:36:34 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
> Reworked similar to above.
Thanks. Related is that there aren't tests in this PR that run with
-Djdk.util.zip.disableZip64ExtraFieldValidation and
-D"jdk.util.zip.disableZip64ExtraFieldValidation=true to check that zip
implementations
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:01:37 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Other than that there are no limitation on the size of extended block, it
> could be 0, 20, 100 , etc. But it should contain correct data if necessary
> and should not be larger than the surrounding "chunk".
This seems to be a very
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:41:35 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when
Please refer to JDK-8314063.
The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is either
too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client tries to
connect to the server with LDAPs protocol. It requires the handshake after the
socket is created and connected,
On Tue, 30 May 2023 13:03:27 GMT, Aleksandar Pejovic
wrote:
> The current code for cgroup support in the JDK has large and expensive
> dependencies: it uses NIO, streams, and regular expressions. This leads to
> unnecessary class loading and slows down startup, especially when the code is
>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:38:42 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which is a broad clean up of the DigitList class (used
>> by Format classes in j.text).
>>
>> This PR is intended to be a portion of a bigger change (split up to make
>> reviewing easier).
>>
>> The main change
> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
> encountered when opening select APK, ZIP or JAR files. Please see refer to
> the
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:21:42 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Lance Andersen has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add additional zip to the DataProvider so it is exercised
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/ZipFile.java
> Please review this PR which is a broad clean up of the DigitList class (used
> by Format classes in j.text).
>
> This PR is intended to be a portion of a bigger change (split up to make
> reviewing easier).
>
> The main change simplifying related Rounding Mode logic in `shouldRoundUp()`
>
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:43:09 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/DigitList.java line 521:
>>
>>> 519: if (non0AfterIndex(maximumDigits)) {
>>> 520: return (isNegative && roundingMode ==
>>> RoundingMode.FLOOR)
>>> 521:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:45:12 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> When backporting [JDK-8312127](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312127),
> I realized there are no targeted tests for `FileDescriptor.sync` that can be
> used to qualify the changes in that area.
>
> Additionally, we use
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:32:58 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> When backporting [JDK-8312127](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312127),
>> I realized there are no targeted tests for `FileDescriptor.sync` that can be
>> used to qualify the changes in that area.
>>
>> Additionally, we use
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:49:37 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Are you arguing to drop all checking of the extra fields? It's not clear to
> me that this PR should be do that as it has a lot of implications.
Not all, but do it in a different way. The only thing which is MUST be
implemented according
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:36:47 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> I don't think this is a question of "taste" because
>> `isZip64ExtBlockSizeValid()` suggests that the method will check for *valid*
>> sizes and to my understanding `0` is not a valid input. This method might
>> also be called from
> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
> encountered when opening select APK, ZIP or JAR files. Please see refer to
> the
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 00:07:01 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> [TEST.zip](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/12340301/TEST.zip)
>
> try this example, zip -T passed, unzip works fine, but openjdk rejects it.
Yes, the Zip64 header in the CEN has a field size of 2 and as we are validating
the
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:32:58 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> When backporting [JDK-8312127](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312127),
>> I realized there are no targeted tests for `FileDescriptor.sync` that can be
>> used to qualify the changes in that area.
>>
>> Additionally, we use
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 23:25:13 GMT, Qing Xiao wrote:
> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
Should all static `@Test` methods be converted to instance methods, as
recommended by JUnit? See
https://junit.org/junit5/docs/snapshot/user-guide/#writing-tests-definitions
> Test Method
> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
Qing Xiao has updated the pull request incrementally with three additional
commits since the last revision:
- Delete extra space
Co-authored-by: Andrey Turbanov
- Update years in comments in test/lib-test/jdk/test/lib/hexdump
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:52:00 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> Addresses Jdk 8288899 : java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService/CloseTest.java
>> failed with "InterruptedException: sleep interrupted" and related issues.
>>
>> This is a major ForkJoin update (and hard to review -- sorry) that finally
>>
> `Collections.rotate` method contains a bug. This method throws
> IndexOutOfBoundsException on arrays larger than $2^{30}$ elements. The way to
> reproduce:
>
> final int size = (1 << 30) + 1;
> final List list = new ArrayList<>(size);
> for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
> list.add((byte) 0);
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:48:29 GMT, Glavo wrote:
>> Clean up misuses of `toLowerCase()`/`toUpperCase()` in java.base.
>
> Glavo has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a
> rebase. The pull request now contains four commits:
>
> - Merge remote-tracking branch
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 00:07:01 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> try this example, zip -T passed, unzip works fine, but openjdk rejects it.
Are you arguing to drop all checking of the extra fields? It's not clear to me
that this PR should be do that as it has a lot of implications.
-
> Clean up misuses of `toLowerCase()`/`toUpperCase()` in java.base.
Glavo has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a
rebase. The pull request now contains four commits:
- Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into case-conversion-java-base
- Revert
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:21:30 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:38:02 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> I understand your point and I had done that previously but decided I did
>> not like the flow of the code that way which is why I moved the check. I
>> prefer to leave it as is.
>
> I don't think this is a
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 23:25:13 GMT, Qing Xiao wrote:
> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
test/lib-test/jdk/test/lib/hexdump/HexPrinterTest.java line 84:
> 82: Arguments.of("canonical", "%08x ", "%02x ", 16, "|", 31,
> HexPrinter.Formatters.PRINTABLE, "|" +
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:45:43 GMT, Nikita Sakharin wrote:
>> `Collections.rotate` method contains a bug. This method throws
>> IndexOutOfBoundsException on arrays larger than $2^{30}$ elements. The way
>> to reproduce:
>>
>> final int size = (1 << 30) + 1;
>> final List list = new
> `Collections.rotate` method contains a bug. This method throws
> IndexOutOfBoundsException on arrays larger than $2^{30}$ elements. The way to
> reproduce:
>
> final int size = (1 << 30) + 1;
> final List list = new ArrayList<>(size);
> for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
> list.add((byte) 0);
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:47:46 GMT, Dmitry Cherepanov
wrote:
> The PR suggests updating copyright headers in two files so that they are the
> same as in other files.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: f4e72c58
Author:Dmitry Cherepanov
URL:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:32:58 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> When backporting [JDK-8312127](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312127),
>> I realized there are no targeted tests for `FileDescriptor.sync` that can be
>> used to qualify the changes in that area.
>>
>> Additionally, we use
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:47:46 GMT, Dmitry Cherepanov
wrote:
> The PR suggests updating copyright headers in two files so that they are the
> same as in other files.
Thanks for the reviews!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15269#issuecomment-1678603082
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:55:10 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> The same copyright updates are needed in JDK21.
JDK 21 is in the RC phase so I assume this should re-targeted to jdk21u.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21/pull/166#issuecomment-1678567910
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 23:25:13 GMT, Qing Xiao wrote:
> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
Please only keep first and last/latest year of changes.
test/lib-test/jdk/test/lib/hexdump/HexPrinterTest.java line 2:
> 1: /*
> 2: * Copyright (c) 2019, 2020, 2023, Oracle and/or its
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 08:03:59 GMT, John Jiang wrote:
>> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
>
> test/lib-test/jdk/test/lib/format/ArrayDiffTest.java line 2:
>
>> 1: /*
>> 2: * Copyright (c) 2020, 2021, 2023, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
>> rights reserved.
>
> Should it
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 23:25:13 GMT, Qing Xiao wrote:
> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
test/lib-test/jdk/test/lib/format/ArrayDiffTest.java line 2:
> 1: /*
> 2: * Copyright (c) 2020, 2021, 2023, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
> rights reserved.
Should it just modify the
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:06:36 GMT, Glavo wrote:
>> Clean up misuses of `toLowerCase()`/`toUpperCase()` in java.base.
>
> Glavo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
> since the last revision:
>
> Revert StreamTokenizer.java
Now that the incompatible change to
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 07:48:00 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Currently there is a number of functionality that would be interesting to
> have for shared lib load operations in the JDK C code.
> Some examples :
> Events::log_dll_message for hs-err files reporting
> JFR event NativeLibraryLoad
>
Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
-
Commit messages:
- Corrected the testSecondArrayIsNull() in ArrayDiffTest and modified format.
- Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15131/files
Webrev:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 23:25:13 GMT, Qing Xiao wrote:
> Modified all tests under lib-test/jdk to use JUnit
Marked as reviewed by cstein (Committer).
-
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15131#pullrequestreview-1578082673
69 matches
Mail list logo
