RFR: 8344892: beans/finder/MethodFinder.findMethod incorrectly returns null [v3]

[Sergey Bylokhov]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 16:52:04 GMT, Alexander Zvegintsev <azvegint at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> During the [JDK-8344891 Remove uses of sun.misc.ReflectUtil in java.desktop](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344891) it was discovered that `beans/finder/MethodFinder.findMethod' incorrectly returned null if a signature was not in the cache and added it to the cache if it was already there:
>> 
>> 
>> Method method = CACHE.get(signature);
>> return (method == null) ? method : CACHE.create(signature);
>> 
>> This resulted in a [significant drop in performance](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350573).
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> Before ReflectUtil was removed, it worked by coincidence:
>> 
>> 
>> Method method = CACHE.get(signature);
>> return (method == null) || isPackageAccessible(method.getDeclaringClass()) ? method : CACHE.create(signature);
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1. `Cache#get` non-obviously creates a value in Cache, this in turn allowed us to avoid the NPE in the `(method == null) || isPackageAccessible(method.getDeclaringClass())` condition
>> 
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/d6c4be672f6348f8ed985416ed90d0447f5d5bb3/src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/beans/util/Cache.java#L120-L126
>> 
>> 2. `isPackageAccessible(method.getDeclaringClass())` was evaluated as true
>> 
>> This is how we previously returned the cached value.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> So the solution is obvious:
>> 
>> 
>> Method method = CACHE.get(signature);
>> return (method != null) ? method : CACHE.create(signature);
>> 
>> 
>> Testing is green.
>
> Alexander Zvegintsev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   year update

src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/beans/finder/MethodFinder.java line 80:

> 78: 
> 79:         try {
> 80:             return CACHE.get(signature);

Is it possible to create a test for this patch?

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23845#discussion_r1978162593