On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:34:11 GMT, Chris Hegarty <che...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Update Class::isRecord to only return true for classes that are final. > > The removal of non-specified JVM checks on classes with a Record Attribute > (see JDK-8255342), has resulted in more types of loadable classes that may > contain a Record Attribute. Since these checks are not performed by the JVM > anymore, Class::isRecord, and by extension Class::getRecordComponents, may > return true or component values, respectively, for classes that are not > well-formed record classes (as per the JLS), .e.g. non-final or abstract > classes, that contain a record Attribute. > > Core Reflection, Class::isRecord, already asserts checks that the JVM does > not, e.g. that the direct superclass is java.lang.Record. Some points from > the Java Language Specification for record classes: > > 1. It is a compile-time error if a record declaration has the modifier > abstract. > 2. A record declaration is implicitly final. > 3. The direct superclass type of a record class is Record. > > Class::isRecord already ensures no.3. This issue proposes to add explicit > checks in Core Reflection to ensure no.1 and no.2, since the JVM now allows > such classes that contain a Record Attribute to be loaded. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 5a03e476 Author: Chris Hegarty <che...@openjdk.org> URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/5a03e476 Stats: 230 lines in 3 files changed: 208 ins; 3 del; 19 mod 8255560: Class::isRecord should check that the current class is final and not abstract Reviewed-by: mchung, darcy ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1543
