Hi Joe, I suspect you pasted the wrong link, link to updated impl ends in 8212081.2 right? Anyhow, the .2 version looks good. Ship it!
Cheers /Joel /Joel On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 04:03, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > PS Re-refined implementation at > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8212081.1/ > > The implementation now elides "extends java.lang.Object" in "? extends > java.lang.Object" if Object is not annotated and there are no other bounds. > > The tests were updated to cover this situation too. > > Thanks, > > -Joe > > > On 10/16/2018 7:26 PM, Werner Dietl wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > thanks for fixing this! I like the improved testing approach. > > Changes look good to me, but I'm not a reviewer. > > > > Best, > > cu, WMD. > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:11 AM joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Follow-up fix developed; details below. > >> > >> On 10/11/2018 12:12 PM, joe darcy wrote: > >>> Hi Werner, > >>> > >>> On 10/10/2018 1:23 PM, Werner Dietl wrote: > >>>> Hi Joe, all, > >>>> > >>>> the logic looks good to me. > >>>> > >>>> In the tests I'm wondering whether to include an annotated wildcard > >>>> bound. There is: > >>>> > >>>> 307 public @AnnotType(11) Set<@AnnotType(13) ? extends Number> > >>>> fooNumberSet2() {return null;} > >>>> > >>>> but nothing like > >>>> > >>>> Set<? extends @AnnotType(13) Number> fooNumberSet2() {return null;} > >>>> > >>>> I wouldn't expect problems for this, but a test would exercise some of > >>>> the code that gets added. > >>> You were correct to probe at the bounds on the wildcard components; > >>> the code that was reviewed and pushed does not print annotations on > >>> the bounds. > >>> > >>> I'll work on an update to handle this and similar cases where there > >>> are embedded types that could have annotations. > >>> > >> Please review the fix for > >> > >> JDK-8212081 : AnnotatedType.toString implementation don't print > >> annotations on embedded types > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8212081.1/ > >> > >> A few notes on the test, the main structural change is that information > >> about the expected properties of the toString form of the AnnotatedType > >> of a method's return type is stored in a *declaration annotation* on the > >> method. The presence of the expected number of type annotations on the > >> full string of the AnnotatedType can thus be directly tested. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Joe > >
