Hi Prasanta,
Changes are fine.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasanta Sadhukhan
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 10:32 AM
To: Prahalad Kumar Narayanan; Philip Race; 2d-dev
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic character
cannot be rendered on MacOS X
Hi Phil,
Yes, I agree with Prahalad's findings. If "Lucida Sans Regular" is removed,
then findFont2D() call, later on called in
createCompositeFont() will return null and so the font2D object will not get
added to the list of Physical fonts and we will get missing glyph ie empty box
and NOT an exception. I have tested this scenario too.
Regards
Prasanta
On 2/10/2017 9:51 AM, Prahalad Kumar Narayanan wrote:
> Hello Phil
>
> A very good feedback:
>> I am OK with this if you can confirm that removing Lucida Sans Regular from
>> the JDK does not cause any nasty exceptions.
> I believe, removing Lucida Sans Regular from JDK won't cause any trouble.
>
> Reason is that- FontManager.findFont2D should return NULL in this case. The
> logic that follows this call in CFont.java checks if number of physical fonts
> is lesser than expected count and updates the list of fonts accordingly.
> 234 if (idx < fonts.length) {
> 235 PhysicalFont[] orig = fonts;
> 236 fonts = new PhysicalFont[idx];
> 237 System.arraycopy(orig, 0, fonts, 0, idx);
> 238 }
>
> A quick look at SunFontManager.findFont2D : The definition invokes
> findJREDeferredFont method to first search for an entry in jreFontMap and
> then initialize the Lucida Sans font. If the initialization succeeds a valid
> physical font is returned. Upon failure, it should return NULL.
>
> Thanks
> Have a good day
>
> Prahalad N.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:09:00 -0800
> From: Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com>
> To: Prasanta Sadhukhan <prasanta.sadhuk...@oracle.com>
> Cc: 2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic
> character cannot be rendered on MacOS X
> Message-ID: <589d2ecc.4090...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> I am OK with this if you can confirm that removing Lucida Sans Regular from
> the JDK does not cause any nasty exceptions.
>
> Apple use the PostScript name but our lookup code should work for the
> TrueType name.
>
> So overall I think this should be fine - from visual inspection - and
> assuming it has been tested :-)
>
> +1
>
> -phil.
>
> On 2/9/17, 1:08 AM, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Please review a fix for an issue which causes arabic character "alef"
>> to be not rendered in osx for menlo font in italic style.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147002
>>
>> The issue was actually a regression caused by the fix to JDK-7162125:
>> [macosx] A font has different behaviour for ligatures depending on
>> its creation mode in which we have added cascaded font list to find
>> the real fonts that CFont uses, so that there is no need to use "negative"
>> glyph code for finding the fallback fonts using the
>> "subsititution"/"fallback" mechanism used by osx code.
>>
>> However, the above logic of using cascaded font list in CFont does
>> not take into account of using JRE provided fonts like all those
>> Lucida* ttf in jdk/lib/fonts/, so when a glyph (in this intance, arabic
>> 'alef'
>> character) is intended to be rendered in Menlo font in italic style,
>> osx will not be able to find the glyph in Menlo-Italic font and
>> neither in all the cascaded system fonts provided by CoreText, so it
>> results in empty box.
>>
>> Before 7162125 fix, the fallback code in
>> CoreTextSupport.m#CTS_CopyCTFallbackFontAndGlyphForJavaGlyphCode()
>> uses JRSFontCreateFallbackFontForCharacters()
>> was adding jre/lib/fonts to the fallback list which was causing the
>> glyph to be found in "LucidaBrightRegular.ttf" font and the glyph was
>> rendered.
>>
>> So, the proposed fix is to add jre provided font "Lucida Sans Regular"
>> to the cascaded list so that we get the "alef" glyph.
>> The reason for choosing "Lucida Sans Regular" over "Lucida Bright
>> Regular" is, because it is the largest font file in jre and has all
>> the glyph codepoints that no other font in the jre has, so we will
>> not lose out on any codepoints and will help us in not getting
>> missing glyph.
>>
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8147002/webrev.00/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epsadhukhan/8147002/webrev.00/>
>>
>> Regards
>> Prasanta
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/attachments/20170209/37
> baa90a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:34:34 -0800 (PST)
> From: Prahalad Kumar Narayanan <prahalad.kumar.naraya...@oracle.com>
> To: 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic
> character cannot be rendered on MacOS X
> Message-ID: <98e3b75f-b2e5-41a4-9489-62ec34b05985@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The change looks good. +1.
>
> Minor observation: The copyright should be updated to 2017 in the CFont.java
> file.
> If you use any script to update the same, then ignore this observation.
>
> Thanks
> Have a good day
>
> Prahalad N.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 2d-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net
> [mailto:2d-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 3:37 AM
> To: 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: 2d-dev Digest, Vol 117, Issue 3
>
> Send 2d-dev mailing list submissions to
> 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/2d-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 2d-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 2d-dev-ow...@openjdk.java.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
> Contents of 2d-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic character cannot be
> rendered on MacOS X (Prasanta Sadhukhan)
> 2. RFR: 8172967: [macosx] Exception while working with layout
> for text containing unmappable character (Philip Race)
> 3. Re: Review Request for JDK-7107905: ColorModel subclasses
> are missing hashCode() or equals() or both methods (Jim Graham)
> 4. Re: Review Request for JDK-7107905: ColorModel subclasses
> are missing hashCode() or equals() or both methods (Phil Race)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:38:11 +0530
> From: Prasanta Sadhukhan <prasanta.sadhuk...@oracle.com>
> To: 2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>, Philip Race
> <philip.r...@oracle.com>
> Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic
> character cannot be rendered on MacOS X
> Message-ID: <459b6a81-1ae9-9876-e86a-c567dd452...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please review a fix for an issue which causes arabic character "alef" to be
> not rendered in osx for menlo font in italic style.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147002
>
> The issue was actually a regression caused by the fix to JDK-7162125:
> [macosx] A font has different behaviour for ligatures depending on its
> creation mode in which we have added cascaded font list to find the real
> fonts that CFont uses, so that there is no need to use "negative" glyph code
> for finding the fallback fonts using the "subsititution"/"fallback" mechanism
> used by osx code.
>
> However, the above logic of using cascaded font list in CFont does not take
> into account of using JRE provided fonts like all those Lucida* ttf in
> jdk/lib/fonts/, so when a glyph (in this intance, arabic 'alef' character) is
> intended to be rendered in Menlo font in italic style, osx will not be able
> to find the glyph in Menlo-Italic font and neither in all the cascaded system
> fonts provided by CoreText, so it results in empty box.
>
> Before 7162125 fix, the fallback code in
> CoreTextSupport.m#CTS_CopyCTFallbackFontAndGlyphForJavaGlyphCode()
> uses
> JRSFontCreateFallbackFontForCharacters()
> was adding jre/lib/fonts to the fallback list which was causing the glyph to
> be found in "LucidaBrightRegular.ttf" font and the glyph was rendered.
>
> So, the proposed fix is to add jre provided font "Lucida Sans Regular"
> to the cascaded list so that we get the "alef" glyph.
> The reason for choosing "Lucida Sans Regular" over "Lucida Bright Regular"
> is, because it is the largest font file in jre and has all the glyph
> codepoints that no other font in the jre has, so we will not lose out on any
> codepoints and will help us in not getting missing glyph.
>
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8147002/webrev.00/
>
> Regards
> Prasanta
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/attachments/20170209/4a
> d48b17/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:30:26 -0800
> From: Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com>
> To: 2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8172967: [macosx] Exception while
> working with layout for text containing unmappable character
> Message-ID: <589cc352.6040...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8172967/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172967
>
> Full evaluation in the bug report.
> Short summary: avoid AIOB and NPE when Mac glyph mapper returns a
> negated unicode which is misinterpreted as having composite font slot
> 255
>
> -phil.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:59:37 -0800
> From: Jim Graham <james.gra...@oracle.com>
> To: Jayathirth D V <jayathirth....@oracle.com>, Philip Race
> <philip.r...@oracle.com>, 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
> Message-ID: <d8c2a142-e76d-a33f-e614-bcbf3c803...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> 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#ConstructorTestte
>> s
>> tCase1: 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#ConstructorTe
>>>>>> s
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:05:24 -0800
> From: Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com>
> To: Jim Graham <james.gra...@oracle.com>, Jayathirth D V
> <jayathirth....@oracle.com>, 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
> Message-ID: <78dab679-6b22-ea05-5418-67528881b...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> Oh .. my reply was to an off-list email. I did not notice that.
> So I should repeat that here :
>
> On 2/9/17 12:38 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>> 32 import java.util.Objects;
>>
>> This is now un-used, isn't it ? Yet all 3 subclasses still have this
>> import.
>>
>> I don't need to "approve" a new webrev containing that but it would
>> be good to publish one.
>>
>> +1
> -phil.
>
>
> On 02/09/2017 01:59 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>> 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#ConstructorT
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>> st
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/attachments/20170209/c7
> 1a98ce/attachment.html>
>
> End of 2d-dev Digest, Vol 117, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
>
> End of 2d-dev Digest, Vol 117, Issue 4
> **************************************
