Hi David,
It looks good, thank you for test improvements.
One minor comment.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8165827/webrev/test/com/sun/jdi/InterfaceMethodsTest.java.frames.html
511 private Method testLookup(ReferenceType targetClass, String
methodName, String methodSig,
512 boolean declaredOnly, Class<?> expectedException) {
513
514 System.err.println("Looking up " + targetClass.name() + "." +
methodName + methodSig);
515 try {
516 Method m = declaredOnly ?
517 lookupDeclaredMethod(targetClass, methodName, methodSig) :
518 lookupMethod(targetClass, methodName, methodSig);
519
520 if (expectedException == null) {
521 System.err.println("--- PASSED");
522 return m;
523 }
524 }
525 catch (Throwable t) {
526 if (t.getClass() != expectedException) {
527 System.err.println("--- FAILED");
528 failure("FAILED: got exception " + t + " but expected exception "
529 + expectedException.getSimpleName());
530 return null;
531 }
532 else {
533 System.err.println("--- PASSED");
534 return null;
535 }
536 }
537 System.err.println("--- FAILED");
538 failure("FAILED: lookup succeeded but expected exception "
539 + expectedException.getSimpleName());
540 return null;
541 }
I'd be better to keep the fragments 520-523 and 537-540 together as
they are logically bound.
Perhaps, it is better to move the 520-523 to move before the L537.
There are more cases to use the testLookup() in this test but it is
probably for future improvements.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 10/10/16 18:55, 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
