RFR: 8158295 Add a multi-release jar validation mechanism to jar tool

[Steve Drach]

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Oleg G. Barbashov <oleg.barbashov at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 27.07.2016 15:34, Oleg G. Barbashov пишет:
>> 
>> 07.07.2016 23:32, Steve Drach пишет:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Please review the following:
>>> 
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8158295/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8158295/webrev.01/>
>>> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8158295 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8158295>
>>> 
>>> This changeset adds a multi-release jar validator to jar tool. After the jar tool builds a multi-release jar, the potential resultant jar file is passed to the validator to assure that the jar file meets the minimal standards of a multi-release jar, in particular that versioned classes have the same api as base classes they override.  There are other checks, for example warning if two classes are identical.  If the jar file is invalid, it is not kept, so —create will not produce a jar file and —update will keep the input jar file.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Steve
>> 
>> 574     private boolean validate(String fname) {
>> 575         boolean valid = true;
>> 576         Validator validator = new Validator(this);
>> 577
>> 578         try (JarFile jf = new JarFile(fname)) {
>> 579             AtomicBoolean validHolder = new AtomicBoolean(valid);
>> 580             jf.stream()
>> 581                     .filter(e -> !e.isDirectory())
>> 582                     .filter(e -> !e.getName().equals(MANIFEST_NAME))
>> 583                     .filter(e -> !e.getName().endsWith(MODULE_INFO))
>> 584                     .sorted(entryComparator)
>> 585                     .forEachOrdered(je -> {
>> 586                         boolean b = validator.accept(je, jf);
>> 587                         if (validHolder.get()) validHolder.set(b);
>> 588                     });
>> 589             valid = validHolder.get();
>> 590         } catch (IOException e) {
>> 591 error(formatMsg2("error.validator.jarfile.exception", fname, e.getMessage()));
>> 592             valid = false;
>> 593         } catch (InvalidJarException e) {
>> 594             error(formatMsg("error.validator.bad.entry.name", e.getMessage()));
>> 595             valid = false;
>> 596         }
>> 597         return valid;
>> 598     }
>> 
>> (IMHO) Using of AtomicBoolean and forEachOrdered() for stateful validator here looks forced. It may be avoided by using regular iterator with "for" loop:
>> 
>>            Stream<JarEntry> sorted = jf.stream()
>>                    .filter(e -> !e.isDirectory())
>>                    .filter(e -> !e.getName().equals(MANIFEST_NAME))
>>                    .filter(e -> !e.getName().endsWith(MODULE_INFO))
>>                    .sorted(entryComparator);
>>            for (Iterator<JarEntry> iter = sorted.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
>>                if (!validator.accept(iter.next(), jf)) {
>>                    valid = false;
>>                }
>>            }
>> 
>> or even better by storing "valid" state inside the Validator after turning it to regular Consumer<JarEntry>:
>> 
>>        try (JarFile jf = new JarFile(fname)) {
>>            Validator validator = new Validator(this, jf);
>>            jf.stream()
>>                    .filter(e -> !e.isDirectory())
>>                    .filter(e -> !e.getName().equals(MANIFEST_NAME))
>>                    .filter(e -> !e.getName().endsWith(MODULE_INFO))
>>                    .sorted(entryComparator)
>>                    .forEachOrdered(validator);
>>            return validator.isValidated();
>>        } catch (IOException e) {
>>            error(formatMsg2("error.validator.jarfile.exception", fname, e.getMessage()));
>>            return false;
>>        } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
>>            error(formatMsg("error.validator.bad.entry.name", e.getMessage()));
>>            return false;
>>        }
>> 
>> Moreover what is the reason to have an external loop over the jar's entries? Even if we will use several different filter sets in future it would be better to use it as optional parameter for Validator.
>> 
> I mean that the jar file entries iteration code ("580 jf.stream().filter(e.... ")    ...    588                     }); ) processing should be a part of "Validator”.

Yes, I know what you meant.  I think it’s fine where it is, but I do like your suggestion to make Validator a Consumer and I’ll be releasing an updated webrev soon, with that change and the changes you recommended for the tests.  Thanks for the ideas!