Thanks for looking at this Lois!
David
On 11/10/2016 9:48 PM, Lois Foltan wrote:
Hi David,
This looks good and I like the improvements you made to the test.
Lois
On 10/10/2016 9:55 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Turns out the only place changes were needed were in JDI.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165827
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8165827/webrev/
The spec change in ObjectReference is very simple and there is a CCC
request in progress to ratify that change.
The implementation change in ObjectReferenceImpl mirrors the updated
spec and use the same format as already present in the class version
of the check method.
The test is a little more complex. This is obviously an extension to
what is already tested in InterfaceMethodsTest. However IMT has a
number of problem with the way it is currently written [1] -
specifically it doesn't properly separate method lookup from method
invocation. So I've added the capability to separate lookup and
invocation for use with the private interface methods - I have not
tried to address shortcomings of the existing tests. Though I did fix
the return value checking logic! And did some clarifying comments and
renaming in a couple of place.
Still on the test I can't add the negative tests I would like to add
because they actually pass due to a different long standing bug in JDI
- [2]. So the actual private interface method testing is very simple:
can I get the Method from the InterfaceType for the interface
declaring the method? Can I then invoke that method on an instance of
a class that implements the interface.
Thanks,
David
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8166453
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167416
