<AWT Dev> <Beans Dev> JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8231334: Suppress warnings on non-serializable instance fields in client libs serializable classes

[Philip Race]

OK. Approved by me .. but .. it would be good if you can point out any 
other cases
where you think we can compatibly make changes to get rid of the need 
for suppressing this new warning.

-phil

On 9/23/19, 12:54 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> On 9/22/2019 1:25 PM, Philip Race wrote:
>>
>> +        @SuppressWarnings("serial") // Not statically typed as Serializable
>>
>> So is the comment being used to distinguish this overloading of what "serial" means ?
>> Why not introduce a new warning category ?
>
>
> The -Xlint:serial check in javac has had an operational meaning of 
> "does a serializable type define a serialVersionUID?" The 
> work-in-progress is aiming to expand this to cover other aspect of 
> declaring serializable (and externalizable) types.
>
> It would be possible to put the new checks in their own category, but 
> that would limit their use and some of new checks find what are most 
> likely semantic errors, such as declaring a serialVersionUID in an 
> enum type, which gets silently ignored.
>
>
>>
>> Randomly looking at
>> ====
>> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Container.java
>>
>> @@ -3849,10 +3849,11 @@
>>
>>          /**
>>           * The handler to fire {@code PropertyChange}
>>           * when children are added or removed
>>           */
>> +        @SuppressWarnings("serial") // Not statically typed as 
>> Serializable
>>          protected ContainerListener accessibleContainerHandler = null;
>> ===
>>
>> I see that Container has a writeObject method which doesn't write 
>> this field, so it is effectively transient.
>>
>> I recognise that it is difficult for the compiler to figure this out, 
>> so perhaps there should just be a policy
>> not to check classes that have writeObject methods ?
>
>
> Yes, it is not feasible for this level of analysis to decode the 
> semantics of writeObject and related methods. The analysis does skip 
> over classes using serialPersistentFields, which is an alternative 
> mechanism to indicate which fields are used for serialization.
>
> In terms of possible false positives, I think it is acceptable to keep 
> doing the checks in the presence of a writeObject method since a 
> writeObject can be used to make alterations to serialization process 
> other than changing the set of fields written out.
>
>
>>
>> Also in such a case, would it be an effectively compatible change to 
>> add transient to the field, so that
>> it presumably would no longer need this warning.
>
> And the class does define a serialVersionUID so adding transient to 
> the field should preserve serial compatibility.
>
>
>>
>> I haven't looked but presumably there could be other such cases.
>>
>> Will you be filing bugs for all the fixable cases ?
>
> Someone should ;-)
>
> To make sure my intentions are clear, nothing in this overall cleanup 
> effort should be construed as seeking to assume ownership of all the 
> serialization in the JDK. The primary ownership will remain with the 
> component team in question. The new checks are meant to the an aid, 
> especially to writing new serializable types, while also prompting 
> some examination of the existing types in an effort to allow the 
> warning to enabled by default  in the build.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
>
>>
>> -phil
>>
>> On 9/21/19, 12:48 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Quick background, I'm working on expanding the compile-time 
>>> serialization checks of javac's -Xlint:serial option. Ahead of that 
>>> work going back, I'm analyzing the JDK sources and plan to 
>>> pre-suppress the coming-soon new warnings, fixing or at least filing 
>>> follow-up bugs for any problems that are found. Corresponding 
>>> suppression bugs are already out for review against core libs 
>>> (JDK-8231202) and security libs (JDK-8231262).
>>>
>>> The new check in development is if a serializable class has an 
>>> instance field that is not declared to be a serializable type. This 
>>> might actually be fine in practice, such as if the field in question 
>>> always points to a serializable object at runtime, but it is 
>>> arguably worth noting as an item of potential concern. This check is 
>>> skipped if the class using the serialPersistentFields mechanism.
>>>
>>> For the client libs, the webrev with the new @SuppressedWarnings 
>>> annotations is:
>>>
>>>     JDK-8231334: Suppress warnings on non-serializable instance 
>>> fields in client libs serializable classes
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8231334.0/
>>>
>>> The changes are mostly in awt, but also some in beans, a few in 
>>> printing, and one in sound.
>>>
>>> As discussed with Phil off-line, the new checks also found an 
>>> existing known issue, the auxiliary class java.awt.ImageMediaEntry 
>>> declared in MediaTracker.java is not serializable/deserializable in 
>>> practice (JDK-4397681).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/attachments/20190924/ac3a4520/attachment.html>