Bug: Compact record constructor is missing generic type info on parameters

[Patrick Doyle]

Thanks, Archie. I've submitted the bug report to bugs.java.com.
--
Patrick Doyle
p.r.doyle at gmail.com


On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:29 PM Archie Cobbs <archie.cobbs at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> If it's just a normal bug, file it at https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/
> and it will eventually get triaged over to https://bugs.openjdk.org/
>
> If it's a language question, e.g., a suggestion for some minor
> improvement, this list would be appropriate.
>
> -Archie
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:38 PM Patrick Doyle <p.r.doyle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is this the wrong place to report bugs like this? What would be the right
>> place?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Patrick Doyle
>> p.r.doyle at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:52 AM Patrick Doyle <p.r.doyle at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have a JUnit5 test case that demonstrates that if you use the compact
>>> constructor syntax in a record, the reflection info will be missing generic
>>> type information. Implicit constructors work fine, as do explicit canonical
>>> constructors.
>>>
>>> I found this on Temurin 21.0.2 and the Adoptium project suggested I post
>>> here.
>>>
>>> The unit test can be found in the Adoptium bug report:
>>> https://github.com/adoptium/adoptium-support/issues/1025
>>>
>>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Patrick Doyle
>>> p.r.doyle at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Archie L. Cobbs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20240423/da2d6312/attachment-0001.htm>