RFR: 4985694: Incomplete spec for most of the getInstances

[Bradford Wetmore]

Egads, good catch.  I completely missed this one.  I will put in 
Objects.requireNonNull throughout.

Cipher.java is the one weird one, null or empty gets the same exception.

Brad



On 10/28/2016 5:13 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> Looks fine to me.
>
> For the update in Mac.java, I may prefer to check the null parameter
> explicitly as earlier as possible instead of delegate to the further
> calls (GetInstance.getServices()).  Similar comment to Cipher.java.  Not
> an issue, just a preference.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
> On 10/29/2016 3:06 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need a review for this P2 TCK-RED-9 bug.
>>
>> The original request (JDK-8166350) was for documenting null algorithm
>> names in the 3 new DRBG getInstances() in SecureRandom, but there is a
>> 12 year old bug for the same thing throughout the
>> JCA/JCE/JSSE/JGSS/JAAS.  I've gone ahead and fixed.
>>
>>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4985694
>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wetmore/4985694/webrev.00/
>>
>> Other comments:
>>
>> .  Instead of waiting for a NP to be generated by the code, added a
>> hardcoded NPE parameter sanity check:
>>
>>     Objects.requireNonNull(algorithm, "null algorithm name");
>>
>> .  verified APIs to ensure proper exceptions are thrown for null/empty
>> algorithm/provider Strings and null Providers.
>>
>> .  Added a full test suite for all getInstances to check for above,
>> including a reflection check for future getInstances.
>>
>> .  Some minor javadoc cleanup/reorgs, mainly to the
>> @returns/@throws/@exceptions tags (e.g. {@code ...}/alphabetizing/ending
>> "." on phrases} for consistency and to conform to current javadoc
>> standards.  I've tried to be consistent throughout (@code's around class
>> names}, but I know I have missed a couple things here/there (no @code's
>> around parameter names).  I do need to move onto other things.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brad