RFR: 8255560: Class::isRecord should check that the current class is final and not abstract [v4]

[Joe Darcy]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:00:21 GMT, Chris Hegarty <chegar at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Update Class::isRecord to only return true for classes that are final.
>> 
>> The removal of non-specified JVM checks on classes with a Record Attribute (see JDK-8255342), has resulted in more types of loadable classes that may contain a Record Attribute. Since these checks are not performed by the JVM anymore, Class::isRecord, and by extension Class::getRecordComponents, may return true or component values, respectively, for classes that are not well-formed record classes (as per the JLS), .e.g. non-final or abstract classes, that contain a record Attribute.
>> 
>> Core Reflection, Class::isRecord, already asserts checks that the JVM does not, e.g. that the direct superclass is java.lang.Record. Some points from the Java Language Specification for record classes:
>> 
>>  1. It is a compile-time error if a record declaration has the modifier abstract.
>>  2. A record declaration is implicitly final.
>>  3. The direct superclass type of a record class is Record.
>> 
>> Class::isRecord already ensures no.3. This issue proposes to add explicit checks in Core Reflection to ensure no.1 and no.2, since the JVM now allows such classes that contain a Record Attribute to be loaded.
>
> Chris Hegarty has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   fix issue in ByteCodeLoader

Marked as reviewed by darcy (Reviewer).

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1543