[8u] RFR: 8061305: Javadoc crashes when method name ends with "Property"

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the review!

On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 14:33 -0700, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> The basic changes look OK, although the convention is to add the
> legal 
> header on even small examples like
>      test/com/sun/javadoc/testMethodEndingInProperty/Test.java.

OK, added.

> (Not so applicable here, I note that in new javadoc tests in newer 
> releases of JDK, the convention is more to write tiny files like that on 
> the fly.  There are various support libraries to make that easy to do.)

Right.

> I generally recommend using the jtreg option -ignore:quiet to suppress 
> running tests with @ignore.

Good to know, thanks!

Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8061305/webrev.02/
HG export:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8061305/JDK-8061305.jdk8.export.patch

How does it look?

> Let me know if you need me to sponsor the change.

Yes, once approved for JDK 8u I'd need a sponsor to get this pushed.
I'll let you know once it's ready and approved.

Thanks,
Severin

> -- Jon
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/19/2018 05:01 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Could I please get a review of this backport of JDK-8061305 for JDK
> > 8u?
> > JDK-8061305 is in JDK 9+ for a long time now and we've been using
> > this
> > patch in Fedora for years. The actual patch to
> > VisibleMemberMap.java
> > hasn't changed (post-path-unshuffeling) from JDK 9, but the tests
> > went
> > through great lengths of refactoring in later JDK versions. Thus,
> > I've
> > gone down the route of writing a minimal test case for JDK 8 using
> > the
> > old-style testing.
> > 
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8061305
> > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8061305/we
> > brev.01/
> > 
> > Testing: New regression test,
> >           test/com/sun/javadoc/
> >             Before: passed: 139; failed: 1; error: 2
> >             After: Test results: passed: 140; error: 2
> > 
> > The tests in error are marked with @ignore. Thoughts?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Severin
> 
>