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

[Liam Miller-Cushon]

I can still reproduce the issue on JDK 22 and 23 EA, I re-opened the bug.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 4:49 AM Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Patrick Doyle" <p.r.doyle at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Liam Miller-Cushon" <cushon at google.com>
> *Cc: *"Archie Cobbs" <archie.cobbs at gmail.com>, "amber-dev" <
> amber-dev at openjdk.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 24, 2024 12:53:52 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Bug: Compact record constructor is missing generic type
> info on parameters
>
> Thanks, Liam. Perhaps Java 22 doesn't use the "mandated" flag anymore?
> Oracle has closed by bug as "not a bug":
> https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug?bug_id=JDK-8331026
>
> > The observations on Windows 11:
> > JDK 22: Passed all tests.
> > Close as not an issue.
>
> Given that Gradle doesn't support Java 22 yet, this is a bit tricky for me
> to try at the moment. I know when I build it with Java 21 and then run it
> with 22, it still fails, but based on the observations from Oracle, I
> assume it would pass if I compiled the class with Java 22.
>
>
> gradle 8.7 supports Java 22
>
> https://docs.gradle.org/current/release-notes.html#support-for-building-projects-with-java-22
>
>
>
> Question: would it make sense to back-port the fix from Java 22 to the LTS
> versions (17 and 21)? If so, who do I contact about that?
>
> Thanks again,
> --
> Patrick Doyle
> p.r.doyle at gmail.com
>
>
> regards,
> Rémi
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:51 PM Liam Miller-Cushon <cushon at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The only noteworthy difference in the class file for the record with the
>> compact constructor is that the parameter has the 'mandated' flag set.
>>
>> I think the behaviour is due to this logic
>> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/09b88098ff544fec1a4e94bfbbdc21b6c8433abb/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Executable.java#L344-L345> in
>> Executable#getAllGenericParameterTypes (which is used by
>> Parameter#getParameterizedType):
>>
>> // If we hit a synthetic or mandated parameter,
>> // use the non generic parameter info.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:47 PM Patrick Doyle <p.r.doyle at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20240424/5dce135d/attachment-0001.htm>