Hi Michael,

On 17/04/2021 10:57 am, Michael Hall wrote:
Is there anyway to get a simple/test reference type application available that 
could be used in reproducing bugs?

I had two I think potentially serious bugs that were basically not addressed 
for problems in reproducing.

JDK-8263156 : [macos]: OS X application signing concerns - a sealed resource is 
missing or invalid
https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8263156 
<https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8263156>

The command to reproduce was provided. The error appears to be in files 
included in the embedded JDK not being signed. So apparently not having to do 
with anything of mine. (Mentioned I now see in the comments).

As I indicate this is not a serious error for me since I am not submitting the 
app to the Mac App Store but I believe this would get the app Apple rejected 
for anyone who is attempting that. A show stopper for a major use case. It 
seems too bad to simply close it because I missed an email asking for a 
reproduce.

Note the bug referenced is closed as "incomplete" - that is a temporary state while awaiting additional information (usually from the submitter). If we never hear back from the submitter then it will be closed with a different (more terminal) state. If we do hear back then the bug gets reopened.

Cheers,
David

With a reference application I could demonstrate the error against would 
eliminate the need to provide a separate reproducible test case. Quite sized 
for the application in question. Such an application is actually mentioned in 
the bug report comments. Could such a application be made available for 
download or user reproducing - the jpackage command and arguments?

I have looked a little bit at if to see if I can figure out how to sign the 
embedded jdk files. So far only accomplishing that I can no longer simply use 
my name for signing but have to use my fully qualified security identity.

The question now seems to be what is in fact the difference between mine and 
the, unavailable to me, reference application as to these files verifying as 
correctly signed.

A second bug
JDK-8263154 : [macos]: OS X DMG builds have errors and end up incorrect

I thought a fix for this was all set to go in and was pulled. It was apparently 
determined that the problem only applies if the —install-dir parameter is used 
for DMG’s. Where it really makes no sense. My use apparently held over from 
when I was just creating the app.I thought this had somehow also in some way 
regressed to not reproducible. I still think a fairly simple change to the 
AppleScript as was originally planned would resolve the issue independently of 
parameters. The default DMG build I would think should _always_ indicate 
installation to the Applications folder.

With —install-dir this remains a reproducible bug for me at 17-ea.

If a reference build was provided somewhere I might have picked up on the 
parameter difference sooner.





Reply via email to