To avoid storing binaries in Hg, you could try something like:
* uuencode / ascii armor the class file
* convert to byte array in the test
* load classes from byte array
-Joe
On 09/13/2013 11:54 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
I did it by hand with emacs.
I would really rather tackle the bad class files for testing issue once
and for all, the Right Way (tm). But with ZBB looming, now is not the
time to do it.
Hence, I have created this task
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024674
I also just created this one:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024812
On 09/13/13 13:54, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Eric,
How did you create those class files? By hand using a HEX editor? Did
you create a program that patched the original class file? If the later
is the case, you could pack that patching logic inside a custom
ClassLoader...
To hacky? Dependent on future changes of javac? At least the "bad name"
patching could be performed trivially and reliably, I think: search and
replace with same-length string.
Regards, Peter
On 09/13/2013 07:35 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
Ugh. Byte arrays of class file data is really a horrible solution.
I have already filed a task for test development post ZBB to develop a
solution for generating bad class files. I'd prefer to file a follow-up
to this to add the bad class file tests when that's done.
On 09/13/13 10:55, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
I think the right thing to do is to include the original compiling source in a
comment, together with a comment on how you modify them, and then the result as
a byte array.
IIRC I have seen test of that kind before somewhere in our repo.
cheers
/Joel
On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Eric McCorkle <eric.mccor...@oracle.com> wrote:
There is no simple means of generating bad class files for testing.
This is a huge deficiency in our testing abilities.
If these class files shouldn't go in, then I'm left with no choice but
to check in no test for this patch.
However, anyone can run the test I've provided with the class files and
see that it works.
On 09/13/13 09:55, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
Hi Eric,
IIRC we don't check in classfiles into the repo.
I'm not sure how we handle testing of broken class-files in jdk, but ASM might
be an option, or storing the class file as an embedded byte array in the test.
cheers
/Joel
On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Eric McCorkle <eric.mccor...@oracle.com> wrote:
A new webrev is posted (and crucible updated), which actually validates
parameter names correctly. Apologies for the last one.
On 09/12/13 16:02, Eric McCorkle wrote:
Hello,
Please review this patch, which implements correct behavior for the
Parameter Reflection API in the case of malformed class files.
The bug report is here:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8020981
The webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8020981/
This review is also on crucible. The ID is CR-JDK8TL-182.
Thanks,
Eric
<eric_mccorkle.vcf>
