From acobbs at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  2 14:05:43 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:05:43 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v6]
In-Reply-To: <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
 <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
Message-ID: <Kfcpgt8QHj2tPoahkSPYWfo-Mf_mAc7qiglbx8Y-eeM=.497a5d9c-4571-4875-9f08-0e08c67c07ba@github.com>

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:22:34 GMT, Archie Cobbs <acobbs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> JShell prints some of its output using `printf()` formatted strings. However, there are a few spots where a string `str` to be printed is passed directly as a format string like `format(str)` instead of indirectly like `format("%s", str)`, even though the string `str` contains unknown or arbitrary content outside of JShell's control. As a result, JShell can crash suddenly with a `MissingFormatArgumentException` or similar exception if the string `str` happens to contain a `%` format specifier, etc.
>> 
>> Please review this patch which attempts to fix the places where an unknown string is passed directly as a format string.
>
> Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Update copyright year in properties files.

Still looking to get this bug fix reviewed hopefully in time for 24. Thanks.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339#issuecomment-2511630246

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  2 15:29:43 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:29:43 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v6]
In-Reply-To: <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
 <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
Message-ID: <Ay64XPnCEhigvrTmW8_v46vxzRADqvm87J58rP1xkUI=.96384255-e0b3-40fa-8552-fb68474fa90e@github.com>

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:22:34 GMT, Archie Cobbs <acobbs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> JShell prints some of its output using `printf()` formatted strings. However, there are a few spots where a string `str` to be printed is passed directly as a format string like `format(str)` instead of indirectly like `format("%s", str)`, even though the string `str` contains unknown or arbitrary content outside of JShell's control. As a result, JShell can crash suddenly with a `MissingFormatArgumentException` or similar exception if the string `str` happens to contain a `%` format specifier, etc.
>> 
>> Please review this patch which attempts to fix the places where an unknown string is passed directly as a format string.
>
> Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Update copyright year in properties files.

Overall, looks good to me. But I would suggest to drop/avoid the changes in non-English localizing bundles. These are typically done by the localization team. (The changes may seem innocuous, but I am not clear if there isn't a risk of e.g. conflicts when merging their version with the mainline version.)

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339#issuecomment-2511847864

From acobbs at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  2 15:38:39 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:38:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v6]
In-Reply-To: <Ay64XPnCEhigvrTmW8_v46vxzRADqvm87J58rP1xkUI=.96384255-e0b3-40fa-8552-fb68474fa90e@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
 <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
 <Ay64XPnCEhigvrTmW8_v46vxzRADqvm87J58rP1xkUI=.96384255-e0b3-40fa-8552-fb68474fa90e@github.com>
Message-ID: <5l_kXkwuebHBdhR1eQAtT1FYalD-kQDV8R87ea3gc6o=.9241e0f9-9ca2-4123-a2d7-acb881c59f57@github.com>

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:27:16 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I would suggest to drop/avoid the changes in non-English localizing bundles

OK I will take your word for it - but first I just want to clarify that this will leave the main branch in a state where, in any language other than English, jshell will crash if you type `/help set prompt`.

Is that OK? Should we confirm with an i18n developer?

Thanks for reviewing!

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339#issuecomment-2511869214

From acobbs at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  2 15:47:59 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:47:59 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v7]
In-Reply-To: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
Message-ID: <WDfUaUHHdwxq0MSlpEmJOQQB-TACvaznSLj7OnIH5zI=.505a93df-206d-4005-99ef-bae4a2bb0060@github.com>

> JShell prints some of its output using `printf()` formatted strings. However, there are a few spots where a string `str` to be printed is passed directly as a format string like `format(str)` instead of indirectly like `format("%s", str)`, even though the string `str` contains unknown or arbitrary content outside of JShell's control. As a result, JShell can crash suddenly with a `MissingFormatArgumentException` or similar exception if the string `str` happens to contain a `%` format specifier, etc.
> 
> Please review this patch which attempts to fix the places where an unknown string is passed directly as a format string.

Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Revert changes to non-English properties files per review suggestion.

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339/files/7373faf2..c0d6aeba

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=21339&range=06
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=21339&range=05-06

  Stats: 6 lines in 3 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 6 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21339/head:pull/21339

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339

From acobbs at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  2 15:48:00 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:48:00 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v6]
In-Reply-To: <5l_kXkwuebHBdhR1eQAtT1FYalD-kQDV8R87ea3gc6o=.9241e0f9-9ca2-4123-a2d7-acb881c59f57@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
 <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
 <Ay64XPnCEhigvrTmW8_v46vxzRADqvm87J58rP1xkUI=.96384255-e0b3-40fa-8552-fb68474fa90e@github.com>
 <5l_kXkwuebHBdhR1eQAtT1FYalD-kQDV8R87ea3gc6o=.9241e0f9-9ca2-4123-a2d7-acb881c59f57@github.com>
Message-ID: <NxFt9GUtxpzDBQmyjQeKvQfg5ja4xywGbdpptxAXBsA=.d8e6f975-efc5-4a31-a4a2-e6064ebd66d5@github.com>

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:35:59 GMT, Archie Cobbs <acobbs at openjdk.org> wrote:

> > I would suggest to drop/avoid the changes in non-English localizing bundles
> 
> OK I will take your word for it - but first I just want to clarify that this will leave the main branch in a state where, in any language other than English, jshell will crash if you type `/help set prompt`.
> 
> Is that OK? Should we confirm with an i18n developer?
> 
> Thanks for reviewing!

Oh, wait - sorry, I got that backwards. It works the other way - removing the changes to the non-English files is harmless, it just causes an extra `%` to appear in the help text.

Done in c0d6aeba5e4.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339#issuecomment-2511892485

From acobbs at openjdk.org  Wed Dec  4 15:53:40 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:53:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v6]
In-Reply-To: <Ay64XPnCEhigvrTmW8_v46vxzRADqvm87J58rP1xkUI=.96384255-e0b3-40fa-8552-fb68474fa90e@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
 <yu5xgJZYKERu--t1mqAx7SpgOM4P2AmzoOGDMDmUQYg=.efedbb6b-871d-4fcb-b988-60e25c8667ce@github.com>
 <Ay64XPnCEhigvrTmW8_v46vxzRADqvm87J58rP1xkUI=.96384255-e0b3-40fa-8552-fb68474fa90e@github.com>
Message-ID: <LBTVhZxpLpI55hP45ivwLl1bnJdkyVSN2mD56HCYmF8=.2161d719-a7b7-42e9-a144-784c4b1aa40e@github.com>

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:27:16 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Update copyright year in properties files.
>
> Overall, looks good to me. But I would suggest to drop/avoid the changes in non-English localizing bundles. These are typically done by the localization team. (The changes may seem innocuous, but I am not clear if there isn't a risk of e.g. conflicts when merging their version with the mainline version.)

@lahodaj - anything else needed here? Thanks again for taking a look.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339#issuecomment-2517844386

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Wed Dec  4 16:15:42 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:15:42 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException [v7]
In-Reply-To: <WDfUaUHHdwxq0MSlpEmJOQQB-TACvaznSLj7OnIH5zI=.505a93df-206d-4005-99ef-bae4a2bb0060@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
 <WDfUaUHHdwxq0MSlpEmJOQQB-TACvaznSLj7OnIH5zI=.505a93df-206d-4005-99ef-bae4a2bb0060@github.com>
Message-ID: <NUOy9RaFC9G8zs4TsXB-fWp0oBlJjX1A5gWwf1AhGhQ=.10cd1ba4-dfbb-4e32-88de-3e192f516bfe@github.com>

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:47:59 GMT, Archie Cobbs <acobbs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> JShell prints some of its output using `printf()` formatted strings. However, there are a few spots where a string `str` to be printed is passed directly as a format string like `format(str)` instead of indirectly like `format("%s", str)`, even though the string `str` contains unknown or arbitrary content outside of JShell's control. As a result, JShell can crash suddenly with a `MissingFormatArgumentException` or similar exception if the string `str` happens to contain a `%` format specifier, etc.
>> 
>> Please review this patch which attempts to fix the places where an unknown string is passed directly as a format string.
>
> Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert changes to non-English properties files per review suggestion.

Looks good to me. Thanks!

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

Marked as reviewed by jlahoda (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339#pullrequestreview-2479237133

From acobbs at openjdk.org  Wed Dec  4 23:19:49 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 23:19:49 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8341495: JShell crashes with
 java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException
In-Reply-To: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
References: <n_M3f8tr3lNvwZUK42N-KiUJAm53_-SdXDn_cVsWrHQ=.9ef37f15-3276-4288-9db5-db71ccff0eb6@github.com>
Message-ID: <xObG4q7CJpBs-JTQDzNLBPhGGzmzfMt8thaQYHdLdho=.cf32edbd-f0bc-4873-84bf-a5dcfd0df9a2@github.com>

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 22:31:04 GMT, Archie Cobbs <acobbs at openjdk.org> wrote:

> JShell prints some of its output using `printf()` formatted strings. However, there are a few spots where a string `str` to be printed is passed directly as a format string like `format(str)` instead of indirectly like `format("%s", str)`, even though the string `str` contains unknown or arbitrary content outside of JShell's control. As a result, JShell can crash suddenly with a `MissingFormatArgumentException` or similar exception if the string `str` happens to contain a `%` format specifier, etc.
> 
> Please review this patch which attempts to fix the places where an unknown string is passed directly as a format string.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: bcebb0c5
Author:    Archie Cobbs <acobbs at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/bcebb0c53c1e4629ebde534e237a86c161130fff
Stats:     89 lines in 3 files changed: 61 ins; 0 del; 28 mod

8341495: JShell crashes with java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException

Reviewed-by: jlahoda

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21339

From jlu at openjdk.org  Thu Dec  5 22:40:59 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:40:59 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
Message-ID: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>

Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.

I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.

Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

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

Commit messages:
 - remove quotes around 'Ablehnen'
 - init

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22588&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345327
  Stats: 404 lines in 45 files changed: 165 ins; 123 del; 116 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22588/head:pull/22588

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 00:26:38 2024
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:26:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

Looks generally fine overall. But, looking at the URL for the differences in each file per language, I see changes for `src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/launcher`. I don't see any changes for this file in the actual file changes for this PR though. Was there actually a change here? Or some mistake with what was picked up by the diff tool?

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/javac_zh_CN.properties line 190:

> 188: javac.opt.Xdoclint.package.args = [-]<???>(,[-]<???>)*
> 189: 
> 190: javac.opt.Xdoclint.package.desc=?????????????????? <package> ?\n??????????????????? ''.*''\n??????????????????????? <package>\n???? ''-'' ????????????

Looks like single-quotes are being changed to double single-quotes for some instances. Is this intentional? Or an issue with how the translation process reads this text?

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2483331030
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1872379231

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 00:32:38 2024
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:32:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
Message-ID: <9TIMWt3fO2KwB3iB6EbAbkEqmZ6f055jt9Ldrp4Mdes=.3ff0da2e-9f0b-4762-82e2-99a0f99b04e3@github.com>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:24:27 GMT, Damon Nguyen <dnguyen at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Looks generally fine overall. But, looking at the URL for the differences in each file per language, I see changes for `src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/launcher`. I don't see any changes for this file in the actual file changes for this PR though. Was there actually a change here? Or some mistake with what was picked up by the diff tool?

Just noticed you mentioned there are some keys that weren't caught here but will be in RDP2. Maybe this is one of them? If so, that's fine.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#issuecomment-2521811145

From jlu at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 00:32:39 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:32:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <9TIMWt3fO2KwB3iB6EbAbkEqmZ6f055jt9Ldrp4Mdes=.3ff0da2e-9f0b-4762-82e2-99a0f99b04e3@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
 <9TIMWt3fO2KwB3iB6EbAbkEqmZ6f055jt9Ldrp4Mdes=.3ff0da2e-9f0b-4762-82e2-99a0f99b04e3@github.com>
Message-ID: <MSvr7ioTxif6MUTDa3vxCu_iHvs6Iz2CBwmBDSKkSpI=.459b7476-0a3f-46b1-b53a-9b7bba77abc7@github.com>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:27:36 GMT, Damon Nguyen <dnguyen at openjdk.org> wrote:

> > Looks generally fine overall. But, looking at the URL for the differences in each file per language, I see changes for `src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/launcher`. I don't see any changes for this file in the actual file changes for this PR though. Was there actually a change here? Or some mistake with what was picked up by the diff tool?
> 
> Just noticed you mentioned there are some keys that weren't caught here but will be in RDP2. Maybe this is one of them? If so, that's fine.

Yup, that change came in 12/5. We submitted for translations a few days ago. We can address it in the second L10n drop.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#issuecomment-2521812370

From jlu at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 00:32:40 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:32:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
Message-ID: <63vcWFd5fwCuIIAMsbD2q62_YVzviMzRFGt9qdg5CD0=.406630d5-ee2b-4f2e-af21-984770227578@github.com>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:21:34 GMT, Damon Nguyen <dnguyen at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>> 
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
>> 
>> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.
>
> src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/javac_zh_CN.properties line 190:
> 
>> 188: javac.opt.Xdoclint.package.args = [-]<???>(,[-]<???>)*
>> 189: 
>> 190: javac.opt.Xdoclint.package.desc=?????????????????? <package> ?\n??????????????????? ''.*''\n??????????????????????? <package>\n???? ''-'' ????????????
> 
> Looks like single-quotes are being changed to double single-quotes for some instances. Is this intentional? Or an issue with how the translation process reads this text?

That's because the English source file had an update to introduce those double single quotes. (See https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/javac.html). It's just being updated to match.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1872384728

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 00:46:37 2024
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:46:37 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <6t9NSz5O0tFxmb-pYaTUTThJMnReoS-PuWpwOPRCa_M=.4c65900d-ced5-45d8-a941-3e718f643695@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

Marked as reviewed by dnguyen (Committer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2483359819

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 00:46:38 2024
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:46:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <63vcWFd5fwCuIIAMsbD2q62_YVzviMzRFGt9qdg5CD0=.406630d5-ee2b-4f2e-af21-984770227578@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
 <63vcWFd5fwCuIIAMsbD2q62_YVzviMzRFGt9qdg5CD0=.406630d5-ee2b-4f2e-af21-984770227578@github.com>
Message-ID: <wMmxoyGUzJO2n0fsrJXJ_2wHXWP00bckY-MEuyRcBhA=.8fdf03f7-73eb-4e05-8268-e92fd01dede5@github.com>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:30:03 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/javac_zh_CN.properties line 190:
>> 
>>> 188: javac.opt.Xdoclint.package.args = [-]<???>(,[-]<???>)*
>>> 189: 
>>> 190: javac.opt.Xdoclint.package.desc=?????????????????? <package> ?\n??????????????????? ''.*''\n??????????????????????? <package>\n???? ''-'' ????????????
>> 
>> Looks like single-quotes are being changed to double single-quotes for some instances. Is this intentional? Or an issue with how the translation process reads this text?
>
> That's because the English source file had an update to introduce those double single quotes. (See https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/javac.html). It's just being updated to match.

Oh you're right. That's odd though. But the translations aren't wrong then.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1872398739

From joehw at openjdk.org  Fri Dec  6 18:47:37 2024
From: joehw at openjdk.org (Joe Wang)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 18:47:37 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <OrXErTBG9l86w2MQHUba0If9-3gLS8vF_hJf179W3BA=.9a77033b-623c-4a3a-9f65-06c1824c5499@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

The java.xml changes look good. Thanks.

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

Marked as reviewed by joehw (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2485626636

From ihse at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  9 13:01:55 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:01:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed
Message-ID: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>

Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 

I have located these modified files using:

git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list

and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.

I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.

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

Commit messages:
 - 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files where it was missed

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22643&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345804
  Stats: 400 lines in 424 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 400 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22643/head:pull/22643

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643

From liach at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  9 14:08:38 2024
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 14:08:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed
In-Reply-To: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
Message-ID: <t5s3D1kpkqzdxW0gygdpZFC4BW_buSEcJnXHIRCLM24=.e2f924bf-e3f3-4266-a402-c09926a04a08@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:55:53 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
> 
> I have located these modified files using:
> 
> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
> 
> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
> 
> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.

Do we intend to update tests? Some tests have trivial changes as a removal of `@enablePreview` when the ClassFile API is finalized.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643#issuecomment-2528059231

From ihse at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  9 15:52:36 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:52:36 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed
In-Reply-To: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
Message-ID: <BHb13lLThkRZmJw6UjWu4T2gYFK1wyxvUoe4VDZjarY=.a8fb5a16-5ca2-4157-aa1e-a88ec4ea1ad2@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:55:53 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
> 
> I have located these modified files using:
> 
> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
> 
> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
> 
> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.

Yes, all files should be updated. I'm continuing this discussion off-line.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643#issuecomment-2528470989

From acobbs at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  9 19:20:02 2024
From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 19:20:02 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8343481: Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotations
 (kulla) [v7]
In-Reply-To: <kHGjUJ8TrO5alHLad3YI2Z_yox4gaZi-gAY4gf7KHoY=.d32ba2ed-d666-427b-a994-23d2e3a178af@github.com>
References: <kHGjUJ8TrO5alHLad3YI2Z_yox4gaZi-gAY4gf7KHoY=.d32ba2ed-d666-427b-a994-23d2e3a178af@github.com>
Message-ID: <3hnd-xRKdvjqSxDroIr7krZnjSR9MvgQLf3MmrHKmcg=.20bb6d47-939a-4f97-84f9-65a56f9c3a05@github.com>

> Please review this patch which removes unnecessary `@SuppressWarnings` annotations.

Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 10 additional commits since the last revision:

 - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla
 - Revert changes to files imported from JLine to minimize diffs.
 - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla
 - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla
 - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla
 - Update copyright years.
 - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla
 - Remove two more "this-escape" supressions.
 - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla
 - Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotations.

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855/files/94484883..2128cc37

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=21855&range=06
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=21855&range=05-06

  Stats: 135916 lines in 2693 files changed: 95118 ins; 30317 del; 10481 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21855/head:pull/21855

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855

From ihse at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  9 21:05:30 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:05:30 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed [v2]
In-Reply-To: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
Message-ID: <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>

> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
> 
> I have located these modified files using:
> 
> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
> 
> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
> 
> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.

Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Revert mistaken changes to binary files

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643/files/114fd977..5eda7858

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22643&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22643&range=00-01

  Stats: 0 lines in 24 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 0 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22643/head:pull/22643

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643

From almatvee at openjdk.org  Mon Dec  9 23:37:37 2024
From: almatvee at openjdk.org (Alexander Matveev)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 23:37:37 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <7v84rQl0BjuUvn8npxHoWUgiJE58li_T3gH52wg9ql4=.c9815e11-fb0a-43f2-8a82-30e8c9e53d59@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

"jdk.jpackage" changes looks good.

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

Marked as reviewed by almatvee (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2490361583

From henryjen at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 00:47:38 2024
From: henryjen at openjdk.org (Henry Jen)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:47:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <wMmxoyGUzJO2n0fsrJXJ_2wHXWP00bckY-MEuyRcBhA=.8fdf03f7-73eb-4e05-8268-e92fd01dede5@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
 <63vcWFd5fwCuIIAMsbD2q62_YVzviMzRFGt9qdg5CD0=.406630d5-ee2b-4f2e-af21-984770227578@github.com>
 <wMmxoyGUzJO2n0fsrJXJ_2wHXWP00bckY-MEuyRcBhA=.8fdf03f7-73eb-4e05-8268-e92fd01dede5@github.com>
Message-ID: <pr5q8IccY7al2s_gzkQ16uELgdpBMAUHJ6hHXW3caiA=.c28cdd57-07a9-4c51-b4e1-bd517fd18303@github.com>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:43:29 GMT, Damon Nguyen <dnguyen at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> That's because the English source file had an update to introduce those double single quotes. (See https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/javac.html). It's just being updated to match.
>
> Oh you're right. That's odd though. But the translations aren't wrong then.

`?? <package> ?\n????????.`
We use <package> here, but the args format is using Chinese translation,`= [-]<???>(,[-]<???>)*`

Should that be consistent?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1876949210

From henryjen at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 00:47:41 2024
From: henryjen at openjdk.org (Henry Jen)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:47:41 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <CDqZ3fHpuYbeSWeNdqGDa5Y1175-XHF1nVyJz_cftB4=.9af6f2dc-ce22-4d88-b775-99825865b90a@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jmod/resources/jmod_zh_CN.properties line 100:

> 98: err.date.out.of.range=--date {0} ?? 1980-01-01T00:00:02Z ? 2099-12-31T23:59:59Z ???????
> 99: err.compress.incorrect=--compress ????{0}
> 100: err.compress.wrong.mode=--??????????? compress

??????????? --compress

src/jdk.jpackage/windows/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/resources/WinResources_zh_CN.properties line 43:

> 41: resource.installdirnotemptydlg-wix-file=??????? WiX ??????
> 42: resource.launcher-as-service-wix-file=?????? WiX ????
> 43: resource.wix-src-conv=? WiX ?? WiX v3 ????? WiX v4 ??? XSLT ???

Nitpick: The sources here means source code, I would think ?? is more appropriate.
? WiX ?? WiX v3 ????? WiX v4 ??? XSLT ???
? WiX ??? WiX v3 ????? WiX v4 ??? XSLT ???

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1876975815
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1876981882

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 08:36:39 2024
From: duke at openjdk.org (Jonathan =?UTF-8?B?TGFtcMOpcnRo?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:36:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <X_pBqCQ10XFOS8-fKoZ5U80O2CgZTlzt3qzC53rOIl8=.c8105e97-68bc-40ab-a17e-a80e53088c8f@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

The `javap` changes in `jdk.jdeps` look good. Thanks.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#issuecomment-2530801024

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 09:32:41 2024
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:32:41 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <BUI2a5rLSmY26du2TR8KS7BWfqRA18782mWQmUJ0OkI=.f457c388-f548-42d1-a1b8-3472e68db51d@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

I've only looked at the `jlink` resources and added my suggestions for German.

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 68:

> 66: main.runtime.image.linking.cap.disabled=deaktiviert
> 67: main.runtime.image.linking.cap.sect.header=Funktionen:
> 68: main.runtime.image.linking.cap.msg=\      Verkn?pfung von Laufzeitimage {0}

Suggestion:

main.runtime.image.linking.cap.msg=\      Assemblierung von Laufzeitimage {0}

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 73:

> 71: warn.prefix=Warnung:
> 72: 
> 73: err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime=Dieses JDK unterst?tzt keine Verkn?pfung vom aktuellen Laufzeitimage

Suggestion:

err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime=Dieses JDK unterst?tzt keine Assemblierung vom aktuellen Laufzeitimage

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 74:

> 72: 
> 73: err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime=Dieses JDK unterst?tzt keine Verkn?pfung vom aktuellen Laufzeitimage
> 74: err.runtime.link.jdk.jlink.prohibited=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module und kann nicht verwendet werden, um ein anderes Image mit dem Modul jdk.jlink zu erstellen

Suggestion:

err.runtime.link.jdk.jlink.prohibited=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Pakete verpackten Module und kann nicht verwendet werden, um ein anderes Image mit dem Modul jdk.jlink zu erstellen

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 75:

> 73: err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime=Dieses JDK unterst?tzt keine Verkn?pfung vom aktuellen Laufzeitimage
> 74: err.runtime.link.jdk.jlink.prohibited=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module und kann nicht verwendet werden, um ein anderes Image mit dem Modul jdk.jlink zu erstellen
> 75: err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterst?tzt

Suggestion:

err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Pakete verpackten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterst?tzt

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 76:

> 74: err.runtime.link.jdk.jlink.prohibited=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module und kann nicht verwendet werden, um ein anderes Image mit dem Modul jdk.jlink zu erstellen
> 75: err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterst?tzt
> 76: err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde ge?ndert

Suggestion:

err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde modifiziert

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 77:

> 75: err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterst?tzt
> 76: err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde ge?ndert
> 77: err.runtime.link.patched.module=Datei {0} nicht im Modulimage gefunden. "--patch-module" wird beim Verkn?pfen aus dem Laufzeitimage nicht unterst?tzt

This is an old translation. This has changed with https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343839. My suggested translation would be:

Suggestion:

err.runtime.link.patched.module=jlink Assemblierung vom Laufzeitimage wird nicht unterst?tzt wenn das Laufzeitimage mit "--patch-module" ver?ndert ist.

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 119:

> 117: providers.header=Provider
> 118: 
> 119: runtime.link.info=Verkn?pfung basierend auf dem aktuellen Laufzeitimage

Suggestion:

runtime.link.info=Assemblierung basierend auf dem aktuellen Laufzeitimage

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2491567949
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877669257
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877670922
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877679928
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877681883
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877683732
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877700959
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877703007

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 10:53:40 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:53:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <pr5q8IccY7al2s_gzkQ16uELgdpBMAUHJ6hHXW3caiA=.c28cdd57-07a9-4c51-b4e1-bd517fd18303@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <Vqn0ltx1QI-s8h75cyQfhjkgLeKU8IRlsgDJcBYFukQ=.a6632513-e287-4027-a8b1-6de5a3c4f9f0@github.com>
 <63vcWFd5fwCuIIAMsbD2q62_YVzviMzRFGt9qdg5CD0=.406630d5-ee2b-4f2e-af21-984770227578@github.com>
 <wMmxoyGUzJO2n0fsrJXJ_2wHXWP00bckY-MEuyRcBhA=.8fdf03f7-73eb-4e05-8268-e92fd01dede5@github.com>
 <pr5q8IccY7al2s_gzkQ16uELgdpBMAUHJ6hHXW3caiA=.c28cdd57-07a9-4c51-b4e1-bd517fd18303@github.com>
Message-ID: <lEjlPIv3jxcolIWqVXG7J1qKWfQ0eMSmqB3jn2NtJIM=.1be59aaf-a8c7-4b77-b7b0-e3660f4648e0@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:05:45 GMT, Henry Jen <henryjen at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Oh you're right. That's odd though. But the translations aren't wrong then.
>
> `?? <package> ?\n????????.`
> We use <package> here, but the args format is using Chinese translation,`= [-]<???>(,[-]<???>)*`
> 
> Should that be consistent?

Regarding `''` - please see https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343412. I believe this is intentional. (`'` needs to be "quoted" in `MessageFormat`.)

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877719268

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 10:53:39 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:53:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <bN8bFtynHVhvdBhq3h65RghUMrFm3kgT38jr4lhhSIY=.43c39e35-76b6-4a68-9a6a-83ed4d1a72bf@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

I don't speak any of the languages changed here, but I have looked at:
- the new concise helps for the `java` launcher, added some comments mostly on alignment
- in the `javac` message `transitive modifier for java.base`, `transitive` is a literal modifier appearing in the source, so possibly it should not be translated (we can enhance the English bundle to say that). There's also a comment inline on this.
- for JShell bundles, I note there's no update for Japanese - that's OK, just making sure its intentional. There was also a relatively late change to the JShell bundles:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/bcebb0c53c1e4629ebde534e237a86c161130fff#diff-fd30aa079239d0b535a6eb014ee0bc8d16709969c87cc9f6c652f91d75aec769
I assume that change was too late for this drop.

Overall, I think the parts I checked are OK (to the degree I can understand it), with possible (future) improvements for consideration.

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/resources/launcher_de.properties line 44:

> 42: 
> 43: # Translators please note do not translate the options themselves
> 44: java.launcher.opt.concise.header  =   Verwendung: java [Java-Optionen...] <Anwendung> [Anwendungsargumente...]\n\nDabei ist <Anwendung> einer der folgenden Werte:\n  <Hauptklasse>                Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptmethode einer kompilierten Hauptklasse\n  -jar <JAR-Datei>.jar         Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptklasse eines JAR-Archivs\n  -m <Modul>[/<Hauptklasse>] Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptklasse eines Moduls\n  <Quelldatei>.java          Zum Kompilieren und Ausf?hren eines Quelldateiprogramms\n\nDabei sind die folgenden wichtigen Java-Optionen verf?gbar:\n  --class-path <Classpath>\n    <Classpath> ist eine durch "{0}" getrennte Liste der Verzeichnisse und JAR-Archive, in denen nach Klassendateien gesucht werden soll\n  --module-path <Modulpfad>\n    <Modulpfad> ist eine durch "{0}" getrennte Liste der Verzeichnisse und JAR-Archive, in denen nach Modulen gesucht werden soll\n  -version\n    Zum Ausgeben der Produktversion in den Fehlerstream und Beenden des Vorgangs\n\nF?r 
 weitere Verwendungshilfe:           java --help\nF?r eine interaktive Java-Umgebung:    jshell

This gives the following output:

Verwendung: java [Java-Optionen...] <Anwendung> [Anwendungsargumente...]

Dabei ist <Anwendung> einer der folgenden Werte:
  <Hauptklasse>                Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptmethode einer kompilierten Hauptklasse
  -jar <JAR-Datei>.jar         Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptklasse eines JAR-Archivs
  -m <Modul>[/<Hauptklasse>] Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptklasse eines Moduls
  <Quelldatei>.java          Zum Kompilieren und Ausf?hren eines Quelldateiprogramms

Dabei sind die folgenden wichtigen Java-Optionen verf?gbar:
  --class-path <Classpath>
    <Classpath> ist eine durch ":" getrennte Liste der Verzeichnisse und JAR-Archive, in denen nach Klassendateien gesucht werden soll
  --module-path <Modulpfad>
    <Modulpfad> ist eine durch ":" getrennte Liste der Verzeichnisse und JAR-Archive, in denen nach Modulen gesucht werden soll
  -version
    Zum Ausgeben der Produktversion in den Fehlerstream und Beenden des Vorgangs

F?r weitere Verwendungshilfe:           java --help
F?r eine interaktive Java-Umgebung:    jshell


It would be nicer if the `Zum ...` texts would be aligned, and the `java` and `jshell` at the end would be aligned. I.e.:


Verwendung: java [Java-Optionen...] <Anwendung> [Anwendungsargumente...]

Dabei ist <Anwendung> einer der folgenden Werte:
  <Hauptklasse>                Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptmethode einer kompilierten Hauptklasse
  -jar <JAR-Datei>.jar         Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptklasse eines JAR-Archivs
  -m <Modul>[/<Hauptklasse>]   Zum Ausf?hren der Hauptklasse eines Moduls
  <Quelldatei>.java            Zum Kompilieren und Ausf?hren eines Quelldateiprogramms

Dabei sind die folgenden wichtigen Java-Optionen verf?gbar:
  --class-path <Classpath>
    <Classpath> ist eine durch ":" getrennte Liste der Verzeichnisse und JAR-Archive, in denen nach Klassendateien gesucht werden soll
  --module-path <Modulpfad>
    <Modulpfad> ist eine durch ":" getrennte Liste der Verzeichnisse und JAR-Archive, in denen nach Modulen gesucht werden soll
  -version
    Zum Ausgeben der Produktversion in den Fehlerstream und Beenden des Vorgangs

F?r weitere Verwendungshilfe:          java --help
F?r eine interaktive Java-Umgebung:    jshell

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/resources/launcher_ja.properties line 46:

> 44: 
> 45: # Translators please note do not translate the options themselves
> 46: java.launcher.opt.concise.header  =   ????: java [java options...] <application> [application arguments...]\n\n<application>?????????:\n  <mainclass>                ??????????????????????????????\n  -jar <jarfile>.jar         JAR???????????????????\n  -m <module>[/<mainclass>]  ???????????????????\n  <sourcefile>.java          ???????????????????????????\n\n???java??????????????:\n  --class-path <class path>\n    <class path>???????????????????????????JAR?????????????"{0}"???????\n  --module-path <module path>\n    <module path>????????????????????????JAR?????????????
 "{0}"???????\n  -version\n    ??????????????????????????\n\n??????????????????:           java --help\n????Java?????:    jshell

Similarly to the German version, the currently of `java` and `jshell` are not aligned:

????: java [java options...] <application> [application arguments...]

<application>?????????:
  <mainclass>                ??????????????????????????????
  -jar <jarfile>.jar         JAR???????????????????
  -m <module>[/<mainclass>]  ???????????????????
  <sourcefile>.java          ???????????????????????????

???java??????????????:
  --class-path <class path>
    <class path>???????????????????????????JAR?????????????":"???????
  --module-path <module path>
    <module path>????????????????????????JAR?????????????":"???????
  -version
    ??????????????????????????

??????????????????:           java --help
????Java?????:    jshell


It would be nicer if they did (assuming it is doable):

????: java [java options...] <application> [application arguments...]

<application>?????????:
  <mainclass>                ??????????????????????????????
  -jar <jarfile>.jar         JAR???????????????????
  -m <module>[/<mainclass>]  ???????????????????
  <sourcefile>.java          ???????????????????????????

???java??????????????:
  --class-path <class path>
    <class path>???????????????????????????JAR?????????????":"???????
  --module-path <module path>
    <module path>????????????????????????JAR?????????????":"???????
  -version
    ??????????????????????????

??????????????????:  java --help
????Java?????:             jshell

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/resources/launcher_zh_CN.properties line 44:

> 42: 
> 43: # Translators please note do not translate the options themselves
> 44: java.launcher.opt.concise.header  =   ???java [java options...] <application> [application arguments...]\n\n???<application> ???????\n  <mainclass>                ???????? main ??\n  -jar <jarfile>.jar         ?? JAR ?????\n  -m <module>[/<mainclass>]  ???????\n  <sourcefile>.java          ??????????\n\n?????? java ?????\n  --class-path <class path>\n    ???<class path> ???????????? JAR ?????? "{0}" ???\n  --module-path <module path>\n    ???<module path> ??????????? JAR ?????? "{0}" ???\n  -version\n    ??????????????\n\n????????????           java --help\n????? Java ???    jshell

It would be nicer if the  `java` and `jshell` could be aligned in the last section, but maybe it is not possible?

???java [java options...] <application> [application arguments...]

???<application> ???????
  <mainclass>                ???????? main ??
  -jar <jarfile>.jar         ?? JAR ?????
  -m <module>[/<mainclass>]  ???????
  <sourcefile>.java          ??????????

?????? java ?????
  --class-path <class path>
    ???<class path> ???????????? JAR ?????? ":" ???
  --module-path <module path>
    ???<module path> ??????????? JAR ?????? ":" ???
  -version
    ??????????????

????????????           java --help
????? Java ???    jshell

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/compiler_de.properties line 2302:

> 2300: compiler.misc.feature.module.imports=Modulimporte
> 2301: 
> 2302: compiler.misc.feature.java.base.transitive=Transitiver Modifikator f?r java.base

Here (and in other languages as well), maybe the `transitive` should remain intact? `transitive` is what literally appears in the source code - similar to e.g. `static` or `private`.

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

Marked as reviewed by jlahoda (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2491653435
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877841057
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877847825
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877854317
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1877712280

From weijun at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 14:23:40 2024
From: weijun at openjdk.org (Weijun Wang)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:23:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <_clBego0M3HtmxdP78pVQtPZlnS0zpsIYd_BrdIrA2s=.dbce28a2-ae9c-402a-a79e-b35270d9ce5d@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

The 3 zh_TW translations have not included the updated text.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#issuecomment-2531772251

From prappo at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 15:46:38 2024
From: prappo at openjdk.org (Pavel Rappo)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:46:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <lBvy2qzHjgJeD5SAAvWvYVjKa-XtHunSilD8LBYKljE=.c4e088d4-9701-49c7-be7c-3f7a917e4d75@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

I cannot verify correctness of translation, but I can review this PR generally for `jdk.javadoc`.

>From what I can see, the changes are only to the property files, which is expected from the PR title. The keys from English files 1-1 match the keys from non-English files: there are no missing or extra keys.

>From that point of view, the changes to `jdk.javadoc` look good.

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

Marked as reviewed by prappo (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2492753063

From asemenyuk at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 16:11:39 2024
From: asemenyuk at openjdk.org (Alexey Semenyuk)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:11:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <BLl3shag73M-ylOPwlLoohZtZ-RcS3dJEcurOb6ncnE=.675c79b5-1aba-4462-bb16-466832df2482@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

jpackage changes look good

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

Marked as reviewed by asemenyuk (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2492824562

From weijun at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 18:06:43 2024
From: weijun at openjdk.org (Weijun Wang)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 18:06:43 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <iHBCiM3T0-eaBVgvozbubFh8igUEsWNq9Y_lkvF4oow=.d04c2f6d-98b4-4d84-ad73-8dbac89035bc@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

src/jdk.jartool/share/classes/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/Resources_zh_CN.java line 167:

> 165:         {"history.with.ts", "- \u7531 \"%1$s\" \u7B7E\u540D\n    \u6458\u8981\u7B97\u6CD5: %2$s\n    \u7B7E\u540D\u7B97\u6CD5: %3$s, %4$s\n  \u7531 \"%6$s\" \u4E8E %5$tc \u52A0\u65F6\u95F4\u6233\n    \u65F6\u95F4\u6233\u6458\u8981\u7B97\u6CD5: %7$s\n    \u65F6\u95F4\u6233\u7B7E\u540D\u7B97\u6CD5: %8$s, %9$s"},
> 166:         {"history.without.ts", "- \u7531 \"%1$s\" \u7B7E\u540D\n    \u6458\u8981\u7B97\u6CD5: %2$s\n    \u7B7E\u540D\u7B97\u6CD5: %3$s, %4$s"},
> 167:         {"history.nonexistent.entries", "    \u8B66\u544A\uFF1A\u7B7E\u540D\u6761\u76EE\u4E0D\u5B58\u5728\uFF1A"},

This string will be followed by a list of entry names, so the translation should be "????????: ".

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1878576305

From jlu at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 19:35:21 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:35:21 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <P7POGyDv4dp3Kce7Xx3XsQoPDK1sAAzkYvfqAkIWIJM=.9b9b68aa-5a4b-4e35-9333-28deea9be618@github.com>

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:

 - implement Severin's review
   
   Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
 - implement Jan's review
 - implement Henry's review
 - implement Weijun's review

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588/files/6472552b..143e22ea

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22588&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22588&range=00-01

  Stats: 15 lines in 9 files changed: 4 ins; 0 del; 11 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22588/head:pull/22588

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588

From jlu at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 19:35:21 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:35:21 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <iHBCiM3T0-eaBVgvozbubFh8igUEsWNq9Y_lkvF4oow=.d04c2f6d-98b4-4d84-ad73-8dbac89035bc@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <iHBCiM3T0-eaBVgvozbubFh8igUEsWNq9Y_lkvF4oow=.d04c2f6d-98b4-4d84-ad73-8dbac89035bc@github.com>
Message-ID: <ZBgxnEy3YVVZkkLb9-zJB9TxkmNr8a8HhrsHXbMUS0A=.fdad5a07-1d55-4e0e-9e4e-43b5aa03a9f0@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 18:04:30 GMT, Weijun Wang <weijun at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - implement Severin's review
>>    
>>    Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
>>  - implement Jan's review
>>  - implement Henry's review
>>  - implement Weijun's review
>
> src/jdk.jartool/share/classes/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/Resources_zh_CN.java line 167:
> 
>> 165:         {"history.with.ts", "- \u7531 \"%1$s\" \u7B7E\u540D\n    \u6458\u8981\u7B97\u6CD5: %2$s\n    \u7B7E\u540D\u7B97\u6CD5: %3$s, %4$s\n  \u7531 \"%6$s\" \u4E8E %5$tc \u52A0\u65F6\u95F4\u6233\n    \u65F6\u95F4\u6233\u6458\u8981\u7B97\u6CD5: %7$s\n    \u65F6\u95F4\u6233\u7B7E\u540D\u7B97\u6CD5: %8$s, %9$s"},
>> 166:         {"history.without.ts", "- \u7531 \"%1$s\" \u7B7E\u540D\n    \u6458\u8981\u7B97\u6CD5: %2$s\n    \u7B7E\u540D\u7B97\u6CD5: %3$s, %4$s"},
>> 167:         {"history.nonexistent.entries", "    \u8B66\u544A\uFF1A\u7B7E\u540D\u6761\u76EE\u4E0D\u5B58\u5728\uFF1A"},
> 
> This string will be followed by a list of entry names, so the translation should be "????????????".

Fixed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22588/commits/ba7732db04b966ff49d4b7f779d5120674443a6c

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1878709957

From jlu at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 19:35:22 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:35:22 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <CDqZ3fHpuYbeSWeNdqGDa5Y1175-XHF1nVyJz_cftB4=.9af6f2dc-ce22-4d88-b775-99825865b90a@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <CDqZ3fHpuYbeSWeNdqGDa5Y1175-XHF1nVyJz_cftB4=.9af6f2dc-ce22-4d88-b775-99825865b90a@github.com>
Message-ID: <inzL0DZhz7pLzOdKaY9DqNkPTQ3XRRQkpbLYzVNonrE=.30980ee6-b645-4924-8703-e9f57f36fb91@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:40:23 GMT, Henry Jen <henryjen at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - implement Severin's review
>>    
>>    Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
>>  - implement Jan's review
>>  - implement Henry's review
>>  - implement Weijun's review
>
> src/jdk.jpackage/windows/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/resources/WinResources_zh_CN.properties line 43:
> 
>> 41: resource.installdirnotemptydlg-wix-file=??????? WiX ??????
>> 42: resource.launcher-as-service-wix-file=?????? WiX ????
>> 43: resource.wix-src-conv=? WiX ?? WiX v3 ????? WiX v4 ??? XSLT ???
> 
> Nitpick: The sources here means source code, I would think ?? is more appropriate.
> ? WiX ?? WiX v3 ????? WiX v4 ??? XSLT ???
> ? WiX ??? WiX v3 ????? WiX v4 ??? XSLT ???

This and your other comments fixed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22588/commits/2d9653259d828d5899a1ffeb6af1c05fb5f4d10f. Regarding `"?? <package> ?\n????????."`, yes we should follow the args format, that is, do not translate the contents within < >. I'll speak to the translation team about your comments to get them fixed on their side.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1878712996

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 19:40:38 2024
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:40:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <P7POGyDv4dp3Kce7Xx3XsQoPDK1sAAzkYvfqAkIWIJM=.9b9b68aa-5a4b-4e35-9333-28deea9be618@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <P7POGyDv4dp3Kce7Xx3XsQoPDK1sAAzkYvfqAkIWIJM=.9b9b68aa-5a4b-4e35-9333-28deea9be618@github.com>
Message-ID: <7hfBIWh_GjV2lTDKsikRmcrxWeIX7iy5fpEFOky6kGM=.5e7f8ea8-c6da-4a06-83e7-05d0a5703353@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:35:21 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>> 
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
>> 
>> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.
>
> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - implement Severin's review
>    
>    Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
>  - implement Jan's review
>  - implement Henry's review
>  - implement Weijun's review

jlink l10n update looks fine.

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

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2493399735

From jlu at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 19:40:39 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:40:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <bN8bFtynHVhvdBhq3h65RghUMrFm3kgT38jr4lhhSIY=.43c39e35-76b6-4a68-9a6a-83ed4d1a72bf@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <bN8bFtynHVhvdBhq3h65RghUMrFm3kgT38jr4lhhSIY=.43c39e35-76b6-4a68-9a6a-83ed4d1a72bf@github.com>
Message-ID: <3fgQkAcXuGlUTxRYAsumcS8TM5ZKn9BqJOKnRC2BBrE=.1df0a2b4-d759-452c-810c-b6f4e1c79ceb@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:31:57 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - implement Severin's review
>>    
>>    Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
>>  - implement Jan's review
>>  - implement Henry's review
>>  - implement Weijun's review
>
> src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/compiler_de.properties line 2302:
> 
>> 2300: compiler.misc.feature.module.imports=Modulimporte
>> 2301: 
>> 2302: compiler.misc.feature.java.base.transitive=Transitiver Modifikator f?r java.base
> 
> Here (and in other languages as well), maybe the `transitive` should remain intact? `transitive` is what literally appears in the source code - similar to e.g. `static` or `private`.

Fixed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22588/commits/c7bd52950eeb85581aa7dc2c6fbbb02a4f4cff11.
I'll check in with the translation team to ask for it not to be translated, I also left a comment for translators. I only provided the fix for _de_, since it is not obvious to me how to correct it for _ja_ or _zh_CN_.

Regarding the jshell changes in this PR, they are a result of translation fixes we filed with the translation team from previous drops. You are correct that https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/bcebb0c53c1e4629ebde534e237a86c161130fff did not make it in this PR because it was too late. The localized changes for that commit will come in the RDP2 drop.

Regarding the alignment issues in the translated versions, I don't think the translation team would adapt those changes because they are aesthetic, not functional, and this spacing is likely consistent with their l10n language/punctuation rules. If I made this change, we would have to manually adjust these on our side every drop which I don't think would be ideal.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1878716896

From jlu at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 10 19:40:41 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:40:41 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <BUI2a5rLSmY26du2TR8KS7BWfqRA18782mWQmUJ0OkI=.f457c388-f548-42d1-a1b8-3472e68db51d@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <BUI2a5rLSmY26du2TR8KS7BWfqRA18782mWQmUJ0OkI=.f457c388-f548-42d1-a1b8-3472e68db51d@github.com>
Message-ID: <rPMCZDtPzO2Hb_YUO4_1u2bVv_n1wu2sEmrDwCZUfrw=.90f8bbf1-ef92-4f40-924e-4da3d64f9d35@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:27:42 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - implement Severin's review
>>    
>>    Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
>>  - implement Jan's review
>>  - implement Henry's review
>>  - implement Weijun's review
>
> src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 77:
> 
>> 75: err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enth?lt keine als Package integrierten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterst?tzt
>> 76: err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde ge?ndert
>> 77: err.runtime.link.patched.module=Datei {0} nicht im Modulimage gefunden. "--patch-module" wird beim Verkn?pfen aus dem Laufzeitimage nicht unterst?tzt
> 
> This is an old translation. This has changed with https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343839. My suggested translation would be:
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> err.runtime.link.patched.module=jlink Assemblierung vom Laufzeitimage wird nicht unterst?tzt wenn das Laufzeitimage mit "--patch-module" ver?ndert ist.

Excluding as we discussed on the JBS issue.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#discussion_r1878719899

From ihse at openjdk.org  Wed Dec 11 21:31:37 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:31:37 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed [v2]
In-Reply-To: <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
 <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
Message-ID: <gUI6O3DLdlu4AdhDS-0B-cDMlrzYXg75SFi7EMrdj3w=.e530ac99-c013-4fa4-a6ab-a7f682524cd3@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:05:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
>> 
>> I have located these modified files using:
>> 
>> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
>> 
>> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
>> 
>> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert mistaken changes to binary files

Any reviewers on this?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643#issuecomment-2537230906

From rgiulietti at openjdk.org  Thu Dec 12 11:43:38 2024
From: rgiulietti at openjdk.org (Raffaello Giulietti)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:43:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed [v2]
In-Reply-To: <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
 <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
Message-ID: <gRpzIP6Mlw0AxGgTQYihZikOGI73xvXWkpgaZ888ixw=.b2021a8e-40da-4a0f-aa05-19220a901240@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:05:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
>> 
>> I have located these modified files using:
>> 
>> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
>> 
>> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
>> 
>> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert mistaken changes to binary files

LGTM

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

Marked as reviewed by rgiulietti (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643#pullrequestreview-2499124132

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Thu Dec 12 12:05:42 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:05:42 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed [v2]
In-Reply-To: <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
 <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
Message-ID: <Sly2_dYRsA0AQ9ZwQU_VFJmf5u_qXhqC3eEU2hV9lyo=.62c8f3ce-a319-4bd5-83f5-38faafb557bf@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:05:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
>> 
>> I have located these modified files using:
>> 
>> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
>> 
>> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
>> 
>> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert mistaken changes to binary files

Looks sensible to me.

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

Marked as reviewed by jlahoda (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643#pullrequestreview-2499212215

From ihse at openjdk.org  Thu Dec 12 12:09:40 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:09:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files
 where it was missed [v2]
In-Reply-To: <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
 <KyA2_DNRdbGRgca8eeOWjp4-uzNS8cDbVDH0VO7xM9M=.aa4bf350-7caf-4ba7-b4db-15b15f8a7f6a@github.com>
Message-ID: <Lk9sJErXWP5f2LWyGgXdF4LzronAIdEerea4S9JScg0=.edd548cb-8f98-4327-93dd-68c7af6a0579@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 21:05:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
>> 
>> I have located these modified files using:
>> 
>> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
>> 
>> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
>> 
>> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert mistaken changes to binary files

Thanks for the reviews!

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643#issuecomment-2538720181

From ihse at openjdk.org  Thu Dec 12 12:09:41 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:09:41 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in
 files where it was missed
In-Reply-To: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
References: <ZotdOsq8WAVwBnEVa9-lzxTQwndjnSBRLf0dBEqclvE=.533c2c0d-6ffe-4812-914f-b307092017eb@github.com>
Message-ID: <aX56lxv8gQAJUVXSA5qyF6lfVUs7IqGu9Kh2e_444qo=.b2580109-1c23-44b4-925d-d3eb54d7c628@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:55:53 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been properly updated. This should be fixed. 
> 
> I have located these modified files using:
> 
> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u > file.list
> 
> and then run a script to update the copyright year to 2024 on these files.
> 
> I have made a manual sampling of files in the list to verify that they have indeed been modified in 2024.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: f7f07b94
Author:    Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/f7f07b94c57d7ac5406d78be47800cf578d1c32f
Stats:     400 lines in 400 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 400 mod

8345804: Update copyright year to 2024 for langtools in files where it was missed

Reviewed-by: rgiulietti, jlahoda

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22643

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Thu Dec 12 22:38:39 2024
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:38:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <P7POGyDv4dp3Kce7Xx3XsQoPDK1sAAzkYvfqAkIWIJM=.9b9b68aa-5a4b-4e35-9333-28deea9be618@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <P7POGyDv4dp3Kce7Xx3XsQoPDK1sAAzkYvfqAkIWIJM=.9b9b68aa-5a4b-4e35-9333-28deea9be618@github.com>
Message-ID: <JGofv61s0LCQbQNfedEacM4hOtcXWew2ehkHGdMinxE=.49db38cc-3729-4630-b8fb-189845b79210@github.com>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:35:21 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>> 
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
>> 
>> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.
>
> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with four additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - implement Severin's review
>    
>    Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <jerboaa at gmail.com>
>  - implement Jan's review
>  - implement Henry's review
>  - implement Weijun's review

Looks like there were additional changes. Good to catch all of these and re-updating each of these spots. Hopefully the translation team can differentiate content between `<>` since similar occurred before. LGTM

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

Marked as reviewed by dnguyen (Committer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2500910380

From jlu at openjdk.org  Mon Dec 16 19:23:55 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:23:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v3]
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <gS7zuTI-WZvlYjfZd-DxFyaOqpOwzuGLS26TaeZvxcw=.a39b0c14-1eb0-4859-bd44-5adcd78b0fa3@github.com>

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:

 - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8345327-L10N' into JDK-8345327-L10N
 - implement Naoto's review

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588/files/143e22ea..463ef9fc

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22588&range=02
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22588&range=01-02

  Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22588/head:pull/22588

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588

From naoto at openjdk.org  Mon Dec 16 19:23:55 2024
From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:23:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v3]
In-Reply-To: <gS7zuTI-WZvlYjfZd-DxFyaOqpOwzuGLS26TaeZvxcw=.a39b0c14-1eb0-4859-bd44-5adcd78b0fa3@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <gS7zuTI-WZvlYjfZd-DxFyaOqpOwzuGLS26TaeZvxcw=.a39b0c14-1eb0-4859-bd44-5adcd78b0fa3@github.com>
Message-ID: <DzK4hJaJDksKu80-Ke2Kej4r99gzPAVcwpsPLiIhDTQ=.2a7eb235-1303-4614-a162-fad361dbceaa@github.com>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:20:54 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>> 
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
>> 
>> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.
>
> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8345327-L10N' into JDK-8345327-L10N
>  - implement Naoto's review

LGTM

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

Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#pullrequestreview-2507065268

From jlu at openjdk.org  Mon Dec 16 21:03:43 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 21:03:43 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update [v3]
In-Reply-To: <gS7zuTI-WZvlYjfZd-DxFyaOqpOwzuGLS26TaeZvxcw=.a39b0c14-1eb0-4859-bd44-5adcd78b0fa3@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
 <gS7zuTI-WZvlYjfZd-DxFyaOqpOwzuGLS26TaeZvxcw=.a39b0c14-1eb0-4859-bd44-5adcd78b0fa3@github.com>
Message-ID: <8dpjCH8cnuHNOyKchKDhnPunFlgWE4TtuWgyOUbP1mM=.19052704-1cad-472d-9546-60f908a143a6@github.com>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:23:55 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
>> 
>> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
>> 
>> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.
>
> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8345327-L10N' into JDK-8345327-L10N
>  - implement Naoto's review

Thank you all for the reviews.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588#issuecomment-2546751576

From jlu at openjdk.org  Mon Dec 16 21:03:44 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 21:03:44 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
References: <eLKAoXA-rbqOivSnzn4BD48WxQ5tMcW1f0vsyif6fG0=.ff60d995-7aca-459b-87d6-83f2f886a990@github.com>
Message-ID: <Y4zzqYY05njIYl6cn8w8ITKFskd79f2WmHepM4K759Y=.0b2ec1eb-8f87-4c40-8d95-541b81dcc49a@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:36:12 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this PR which contains the open L10n drop changes for RDP1.
> 
> I recommend viewing the improved diffs which are built out by Jon's tool here: https://cr.openjdk.org/~jlu/output/.  As always, I can not confirm the correctness on the quality of the translations themselves.
> 
> Generally speaking, observed differences in punctuation can be attributed to language rules. Any keys requiring localization that came in after the JDK was submitted for translations will be handled in the RDP2 L10n drop.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: fd0207d5
Author:    Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb
Stats:     402 lines in 46 files changed: 169 ins; 123 del; 110 mod

8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update

Reviewed-by: naoto, dnguyen, joehw, almatvee, sgehwolf, jlahoda, prappo, asemenyuk

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22588

From jlu at openjdk.org  Mon Dec 16 23:20:47 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:20:47 GMT
Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
Message-ID: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit [fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 16 Dec 2024 and was reviewed by Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen, Joe Wang, Alexander Matveev, Severin Gehwolf, Jan Lahoda, Pavel Rappo and Alexey Semenyuk.

Thanks!

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22775/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22775&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345327
  Stats: 402 lines in 46 files changed: 169 ins; 123 del; 110 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22775.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22775/head:pull/22775

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22775

From naoto at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 17 17:12:49 2024
From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:12:49 GMT
Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>
References: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>
Message-ID: <WJAeoe84aElvqxZgCCVsNAM7GH77biE1ViVU6pjQQBE=.d5287016-eb82-438f-99ba-68e9185a5b0c@github.com>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:15:11 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This pull request contains a backport of commit [fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
> 
> The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 16 Dec 2024 and was reviewed by Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen, Joe Wang, Alexander Matveev, Severin Gehwolf, Jan Lahoda, Pavel Rappo and Alexey Semenyuk.
> 
> Thanks!

Backport LGTM

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

Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22775#pullrequestreview-2509542756

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Tue Dec 17 23:22:36 2024
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 23:22:36 GMT
Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>
References: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>
Message-ID: <fAMZn65mmow6HrNN4feicODoaQTTO5Zeaauo3Bvd8nE=.9a89592c-4f15-44d7-8460-3baf6cf45daa@github.com>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:15:11 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This pull request contains a backport of commit [fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
> 
> The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 16 Dec 2024 and was reviewed by Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen, Joe Wang, Alexander Matveev, Severin Gehwolf, Jan Lahoda, Pavel Rappo and Alexey Semenyuk.
> 
> Thanks!

Backports look good.

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

Marked as reviewed by dnguyen (Committer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22775#pullrequestreview-2510380836

From ihse at openjdk.org  Wed Dec 18 17:06:02 2024
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:06:02 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8344191: Build code should not have classpath exception [v2]
In-Reply-To: <U0XAHfEgxgfvcpBaj8aOZgQgk0cU-GyAMyeJ9cyJrUA=.84aeedaa-ef83-48e9-9eea-1de1e8d0afd6@github.com>
References: <U0XAHfEgxgfvcpBaj8aOZgQgk0cU-GyAMyeJ9cyJrUA=.84aeedaa-ef83-48e9-9eea-1de1e8d0afd6@github.com>
Message-ID: <ijADYihbrxVpLB0pKhpDV8WjUna-2nhvsbx-9qjhukI=.48fc275e-4579-4523-bfba-3992fe0c3d0f@github.com>

> In several (most? all?) of the build system files, the copyright header includes the classpath exception. This makes no sense, and should be removed. 
> 
> I have removed the classpath exception from makefiles, autoconf, shell scripts, properties files, configuration files, IDE support files, build tools and data.
> 
> The only places where the classpath exception is still kept in the make directory is as text strings in some build tools, which generate source code that is bundled with `src.zip`, and thus *must* have the classpath exception.
> 
> This is a huge and autogenerated, but content-wise trivial, PR, and I know such are hard to review. I recommend looking at the entire diff file instead of checking this file-by-file in the Github web GUI. (That's bound to be a painful experience)

Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains three commits:

 - Merge branch 'master' into remove-build-classpath-exception
 - Update build tools, data and IDE support
 - Update makefiles, autoconf, shell scripts, properties files and configuration files

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

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22104/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22104&range=01
  Stats: 1994 lines in 555 files changed: 0 ins; 1120 del; 874 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22104.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22104/head:pull/22104

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22104

From asemenyuk at openjdk.org  Wed Dec 18 18:58:40 2024
From: asemenyuk at openjdk.org (Alexey Semenyuk)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 18:58:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8344191: Build code should not have classpath exception [v2]
In-Reply-To: <ijADYihbrxVpLB0pKhpDV8WjUna-2nhvsbx-9qjhukI=.48fc275e-4579-4523-bfba-3992fe0c3d0f@github.com>
References: <U0XAHfEgxgfvcpBaj8aOZgQgk0cU-GyAMyeJ9cyJrUA=.84aeedaa-ef83-48e9-9eea-1de1e8d0afd6@github.com>
 <ijADYihbrxVpLB0pKhpDV8WjUna-2nhvsbx-9qjhukI=.48fc275e-4579-4523-bfba-3992fe0c3d0f@github.com>
Message-ID: <Jzc-zFSvSRq41LPZQUXveoZoJSEMv30oszPC8Qm23mw=.f0743a79-082c-42b7-ac9d-e31515838f5f@github.com>

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:06:02 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> In several (most? all?) of the build system files, the copyright header includes the classpath exception. This makes no sense, and should be removed. 
>> 
>> I have removed the classpath exception from makefiles, autoconf, shell scripts, properties files, configuration files, IDE support files, build tools and data.
>> 
>> The only places where the classpath exception is still kept in the make directory is as text strings in some build tools, which generate source code that is bundled with `src.zip`, and thus *must* have the classpath exception.
>> 
>> This is a huge and autogenerated, but content-wise trivial, PR, and I know such are hard to review. I recommend looking at the entire diff file instead of checking this file-by-file in the Github web GUI. (That's bound to be a painful experience)
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains three commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into remove-build-classpath-exception
>  - Update build tools, data and IDE support
>  - Update makefiles, autoconf, shell scripts, properties files and configuration files

jpackage changes look good. $0.02

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

Marked as reviewed by asemenyuk (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22104#pullrequestreview-2512625117

From jlu at openjdk.org  Thu Dec 19 22:11:42 2024
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 22:11:42 GMT
Subject: [jdk24] Integrated: 8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>
References: <KJF7JFEKuvapqiZlATOMlMcwCgB65tA4MlIUxnoVas4=.e9e315b2-9a66-4494-a908-554aac297823@github.com>
Message-ID: <caO5L9I00CCGueckmL9E5Ys0lcogyUl4pHvHH7KpEjY=.015c897c-eddb-408b-8f2d-a007af93fc37@github.com>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:15:11 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This pull request contains a backport of commit [fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
> 
> The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 16 Dec 2024 and was reviewed by Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen, Joe Wang, Alexander Matveev, Severin Gehwolf, Jan Lahoda, Pavel Rappo and Alexey Semenyuk.
> 
> Thanks!

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: f0ada9f3
Author:    Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/f0ada9f34e2a768c0dbcb2ed4ff0fe4019fdee9c
Stats:     402 lines in 46 files changed: 169 ins; 123 del; 110 mod

8345327: JDK 24 RDP1 L10n resource files update

Reviewed-by: naoto, dnguyen
Backport-of: fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22775

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Fri Dec 20 06:29:13 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:29:13 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8285150: Improve tab completion for annotations
Message-ID: <vJvgdnek_UV2Ed0BKYBAKuFVoeAuhm5yJveWCBdr10k=.a7e2f89f-e4be-445d-b532-1710313de064@github.com>

When using types code like:

@Deprecated(


and presses `<tab>`, there should be a sensible completion, but currently there is nothing. This PR proposes to add code completion for annotation attributes.

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

Commit messages:
 - 8285150: Improve tab completion for annotations

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22840/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22840&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8285150
  Stats: 173 lines in 2 files changed: 160 ins; 0 del; 13 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22840.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22840/head:pull/22840

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22840

From liach at openjdk.org  Fri Dec 20 08:17:35 2024
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:17:35 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8285150: Improve tab completion for annotations
In-Reply-To: <vJvgdnek_UV2Ed0BKYBAKuFVoeAuhm5yJveWCBdr10k=.a7e2f89f-e4be-445d-b532-1710313de064@github.com>
References: <vJvgdnek_UV2Ed0BKYBAKuFVoeAuhm5yJveWCBdr10k=.a7e2f89f-e4be-445d-b532-1710313de064@github.com>
Message-ID: <81VHehs2A58-FRxMUK1Y-JkY4Xv4QplNZnhj4xzef7Y=.6b26c7d6-5ca4-42df-b91d-144ea46cdde7@github.com>

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:24:13 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

> When using types code like:
> 
> @Deprecated(
> 
> 
> and presses `<tab>`, there should be a sensible completion, but currently there is nothing. This PR proposes to add code completion for annotation attributes.

src/jdk.jshell/share/classes/jdk/jshell/SourceCodeAnalysisImpl.java line 993:

> 991:         if (tp.getParentPath().getLeaf().getKind() == Kind.NEW_ARRAY &&
> 992:             ((NewArrayTree) tp.getParentPath().getLeaf()).getInitializers().contains(tp.getLeaf())) {
> 993:             return isAnnotationAttributeValue(tp.getParentPath());

I recall JLS requires annotation arrays to be one-dimensional only, but this check seems to allow multi-dimensional arrays with annotation elements.

src/jdk.jshell/share/classes/jdk/jshell/SourceCodeAnalysisImpl.java line 1027:

> 1025:     }
> 1026: 
> 1027:     private boolean isAnnotationAttributeValueType(AnalyzeTask at, TypeMirror type) {

This name is misleading - it is checking if a static final field type is suitable for an annotation attribute.  This is more restrictive than general annotation element return types, which also allows annotation interfaces and one-dimensional arrays of primitives, enums, strings, and annotation interfaces.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22840#discussion_r1893609453
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22840#discussion_r1893612456

From jlahoda at openjdk.org  Fri Dec 20 17:37:46 2024
From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 17:37:46 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8341833: incomplete snippet from loaded files from command line
 is ignored
Message-ID: <jTPT3-uBmI6d72QDh34VUmXkwwSLFk5TKJDz9YbFCwM=.aa090ea2-c0a1-4e23-9649-64d3543795a5@github.com>

If JShell is run with a parameter that is a file, and the file ends with an incomplete snippet, the incomplete snippet is ignored.

For example:

t.jsh:
class {


 jshell  /tmp/t.jsh
|  Welcome to JShell -- Version 21.0.5
|  For an introduction type: /help intro

jshell>


This PR proposes to produce an explicit error in this case:

$ jshell /tmp/t.jsh 
Building target 'default (exploded-image)' in configuration 'linux-x86_64-server-release'
Finished building target 'default (exploded-image)' in configuration 'linux-x86_64-server-release'
Incomplete input: class {
|  Welcome to JShell -- Version 25-internal
|  For an introduction type: /help intro

jshell>

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

Commit messages:
 - 8341833: incomplete snippet from loaded files from command line is ignored

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22850/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22850&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341833
  Stats: 36 lines in 3 files changed: 35 ins; 0 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22850.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22850/head:pull/22850

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22850