RFR JDK14-8236597: issues inferring type annotations on records

[Vicente Romero]

while we wait on the decision regarding the change in the spec I 
realized that for the constructor I was already setting the type as 
defined in the record component, see method: 
RecordConstructorHelper::finalAdjustment,

public JCMethodDecl finalAdjustment(JCMethodDecl md) {
     List<JCVariableDecl> tmpRecordFieldDecls =recordFieldDecls;
     for (JCVariableDecl arg : md.params) {
         /* at this point we are passing all the annotations in the field to the 
corresponding * parameter in the constructor. */ arg.mods.annotations = tmpRecordFieldDecls.head.mods.annotations;
         arg.vartype = tmpRecordFieldDecls.head.vartype;     <------------------------- here
         tmpRecordFieldDecls = tmpRecordFieldDecls.tail;
     }
     return md;
}


Thanks,
Vicente

On 1/10/20 2:23 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Looks good - but I have a question - I assume the changes in TypeEnter 
> are to 'copy' the tree for the return type 'as is' from the record 
> component declaration to the accessor return type. That is, is one is 
> a qualified name, the other should be too, and viceversa.
>
> Ok, my question then is: shouldn't something like this be said 
> somewhere in the spec too? After all, since @Nullable foo.bar.Baz is 
> invalid but @Nullable Baz is not (or should use generate code for 
> foo.bar. at Nullable Baz ?)
>
> And... what about parameter types? Shouldn't they need same treatment 
> too?
>
> Maurizio
>
> On 10/01/2020 00:34, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review this patch [1] to fix a couple of issues regarding 
>> inference of type annotations on records [2]. There where two cases 
>> where type annotations were reported as missing. For compact records 
>> whose arguments are not inheriting the type annotations from the 
>> corresponding record component and for accessors for which the 
>> annotation was present but just as a declaration annotation applied 
>> to the accessor. Not as a type annotation applied to the return type 
>> which was the expected outcome.
>>
>> In the case of the compact constructor, the solution was just to copy 
>> the annotations to the parameters which were missing. In the case of 
>> the accessor the solution was a bit more complicated. Accessors are 
>> created but not added to the list definitions belonging to the record 
>> tree. This is done to make them invisible to type attribution as they 
>> are not fully fledge methods, but as a side effect they are also 
>> invisible to the type annotations machinery. For this reason type 
>> annotations were not recognized as such. The solution here has been 
>> to make the type annotations machinery to visit accessors for records 
>> and set the type annotations correctly. In order to do that the 
>> accessor method created at TypeEnter is stored at the record 
>> component and visited at the same time type annotations are being 
>> classified for the rest of the code.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vicente
>>
>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8236597/webrev.00/
>> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8236597

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20200110/872c924f/attachment.htm>