Re: RFR: 6378384 (reflect) subclass can’t access superclass’s protected fields and methods by reflection

[Mandy Chung]

> On Oct 16, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think specifying both is more verbose on one hand, but OTOH it allows one to visually inspect all the cases and think of each and every one in isolation to see if it is valid in a particular caller/member/target arrangement. The test infrastructure verifies that the test case covers all the MemberFactory(s) so one must only verify each individual allowed / denied MemberFactory.

I understand the intention there.  But when each test case enumerates 20 constants, it’s getting harder to review what’s going on and catch any issue.

> 
>>    Builder::allowAll and Builder::denyAll would be useful.  allowAccessMember of a specific modifier can imply both field and method.
> 
> This is a good idea. Here's a modified test (no changes to patched files, just tests):
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/6378384_Reflection.ensureAccess/webrev.03/


I like these grouping and it does help.  One more nit: would be good to replace the class name strings with constant variables.  I don’t need a new webrev.

thanks
Mandy