From my end this looks good. +1 except for 2 outstanding review issues:
- Would like to hear back final comments from Joe Darcy on the new doc
changes/CCC request
- Phil pointed out that there is an unneeded import in some of the files. I agree that we should make a final webrev to
delete them, but I don't need to approve it if that is the only change...
...jim
On 2/8/17 11:56 PM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hello All,
There was a closed test which was failing because of identity-as-equals
approach for ColorModel equals() method.
I have modified it and added in the webrev. Along with this we are now using
colorspace.hashCode() in hashCode() functions instead of
Objects.hashCode(this.colorspace). Reverted using Arrays.equals() in
IndexColorModel equals() method because Arrays.copyOf() takes lot of time.
Please find updated webrev for review :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.18/
Ran jtreg test and JCK there are no additional test case failures because of
the above change. Only 4 JCK tests are failing as it was happening previously.
Just copy pasted my observation regarding JCK failures so that we can trace it
easily:
1)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Constructor: Failed. test cases: 4;
passed: 3; failed: 1; first test case failure: ColorModel2001
This test fails because getComponentSize() returned an array with length 3 but it expects the length to be 4.
In the test case they have bits per component array of length 4 like {8, 8, 8, 8}. But in the test case wherever
they are passing "has Alpha" as "false" we omit the alpha component bit. This is because of tighter
check that we have in ColorModel class as "nBits = Arrays.copyOf(bits, numComponents);" .
"numComponents" will be 3 if hasAlpha is false.
2)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Equals: Failed. test cases: 3;
passed: 2; failed: 1; first test case failure: ColorModel0004
Here they check for equality between 2 ColorModel objects having same
values, but it fails because now we are using identity-as-equals check in
ColorModel.
3)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#HashCode: Failed. test cases: 2;
passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case failure: ColorModel2006
Here they check for hashCode equality between 2 ColorModel objects
having same values, but it fails since we don't have hashCode check in
ColorModel and it will be different between 2 Objects.
4)api/java_awt/Image/ComponentColorModel/index.html#ConstructorTesttestCase1:
Failed. test cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case failure: testCase1
Throws "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 3". This is also
happening because of same reason as why the first JCK test is failing. We omit alpha bit
if hasAlpha is false but JCK test tries to call getComponentSize() with index 3
which throws ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Jayathirth D V
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 3:41 PM
To: Jim Graham; Philip Race; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905: ColorModel
subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both methods
Hello All,
I have updated the webrev to include the following changes.
1) Have identity as equals check in equals() method of ColorModel but
elaborate the specification of equals() and hashCode() in ColorModel on what
properties to check in subclasses of ColorModel.
2) Made changes to test case to have single helper method wherever we
have same equals/hashCode() check.
3) Updated IndexColorModel equals() method to use Arrays.equals() for
rgb[] data.
4) Add comment on why we are not using validBits to calculate
hashCode() in IndexColorModel hashCode() method.
Please find updated webrev for review :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.17/
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Graham
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:51 AM
To: Phil Race; Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905: ColorModel
subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both methods
I think we should move this issue (array size returned from getCompSizes) into
a separate bug entry and a separate fix.
I don't think we need to fix the clone() in the constructor and the getter just
to get hashcode/equals right...
...jim
On 1/31/17 2:34 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
For an application to run into this same issue they'd have to expect
getCompSizes() to return data for components that don't exist. It's
unlikely they would use that data if they really understand the
objects. While that would be odd, I guess I can see someone might be
constructing all of their CM's from an array of 4 components
regardless of the number of actual components and we'd be happily
remembering the useless extra components and returning an array of 4
from getCompSizes(). As I said, they shouldn't really be reading and
interpreting those extra components for any image processing, but I can imagine
that they might do something like create a variant CM by calling the
CompSizes() and copying them into a new array to construct a new CM with
modifications. They might just robotically always copy 4 values without really
checking how many are valid. That's a stretch, and their code is weak. I can
conceive of how this might happen, but I really have no idea how likely it is...
...jim
On 1/30/17 3:56 PM, Phil Race wrote:
Sounds like we should at least try to get the tests updated so they only test
what the spec. says.
Although it does indicate that there is at least a chance that
application code might also fail due to similar assumptions.
Does #1 not fail with the previous iteration of this change too ?
-phil.
On 01/30/2017 01:40 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
Hmmm. Sounds like the test cases were written based on bugs in the
implementation. I'm not sure what the best tactic is here for the
short term for getting this in, but many of these changes should eventually be
considered bugs in the tests. Is it acceptable to break API tests like this at
the last minute even if the tests are at fault? Phil?
Notes on specific instances below...
On 1/30/17 2:22 AM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hi Phil,
1)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Constructor: Failed.
test cases: 4; passed: 3; failed: 1; first test case failure:
ColorModel2001
This test fails because getComponentSize() returned an array with length 3
but it expects the length to be 4. In
the test case they have bits per component array of length 4 like {8, 8, 8,
8}. But in the test case wherever
they are passing "has Alpha" as "false" we omit the alpha component bit. This
is because of tighter check that we
have in ColorModel class as "nBits = Arrays.copyOf(bits,
numComponents);" . "numComponents" will be 3 if hasAlpha is false.
This is a bug in the test then, especially if the size of our array matches the
return value of getNumComponents.
2)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Equals: Failed. test
cases: 3; passed: 2; failed: 1; first test case
failure: ColorModel0004
Here they check for equality between 2 ColorModel objects
having same values, but it fails because now we are using identity-as-equals
check in ColorModel.
How do they accomplish this when the CM class is abstract? Do they
create a relatively empty subclass and instantiate that?
The documentation for the equals() method does not document the
conditions under which it returns true, it uses a vague concept of "equals this
ColorModel". I don't see how they could test anything given that documentation.
3)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#HashCode: Failed.
test cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case
failure: ColorModel2006
Here they check for hashCode equality between 2 ColorModel objects having
same values, but it fails since we
don't have hashCode check in ColorModel and it will be different between 2
Objects.
Same as above, there are no promises documented.
4)api/java_awt/Image/ComponentColorModel/index.html#ConstructorTest
testCase1: Failed. test cases: 2; passed: 1;
failed: 1; first test case failure: testCase1
Throws "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 3". This is also
happening because of same reason as why the
first JCK test is failing. We omit alpha bit if hasAlpha is false but JCK
test tries to call getComponentSize()
with index 3 which throws ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Same assessment as #1 above...
Again, while these are my recommendations about the correctness of
these tests, the question remains whether we want to introduce a
change at this point in the release cycle that will essentially invalidate a
number of tests that have been working for several releases already. I'll
leave that tactic issue to Phil...
...jim
