tests for "strange behavior"

[Steve Sides]

On 4/24/2013 9:10 PM, Werner Dietl wrote:
> Steve,
>
> thanks for these test cases! I'm waiting on a reply from Jon on my
> question about this issue in:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000777.html
>
> Jon acknowledge the issue in his message:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000823.html
>
> but there was no progress since then.
>
> Regarding T8013065.java: the copyright year is wrong.
> The comment:
>
>    33 /*
>    34  * A type-annotations on a field in an inner class not in a
> lambda expression
>    35  * results in RuntimeTypeAnnotations_attibute and
> RuntimeAnnotations_attribute.
>    36  * On a field in an innner class in a lambda expression, it leaves off the
>    37  * RuntimeAnnotations_attribute.
>    38  */
>
> The test seems to be about anonymous inner classes, not lambda expressions.
> The error is that it leaves off a RuntimeTYPEAnnotations_Attribute.
:*)  Sorry 'bout that. I use another test as a template for this...a 
little cleanup issue.

-steve
>
> Regarding TestAnonInnerClasses.java: I think the comma behind the
> copyright is missing.
> I only quickly browsed through the remainder of that test code.
>
> Thanks,
> cu, WMD.
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Steve Sides <steve.sides at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Werner,
>>   A little while ago you mention some strange behavior where type annotations
>> were not being written to the classfile.
>> I have a test for that, a smaller specific one and a larger one covering
>> more test cases, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8013065/
>>
>> The regression test covers the basic issue that when the inner class (in
>> anonymous class) is instanciated the type-annotations are written as
>> annotations rather than as type annotations.
>>
>>      class Test<T> {
>>           Object mtest( Test<T> t){ return null;  }
>>          public void test() {
>>              mtest( new Test<T>() {
>>                      class InnerAnon<U> {
>>                          @A @B String ia_m1(){ return null; };
>>                      }
>>                      //comment below and they're written correctly.
>>                      InnerAnon<String> IA = new InnerAnon< String>();
>>                 });
>>         }
>>      }
>>      @Retention(CLASS) @Target(TYPE_USE)  @interface A { }
>>      @Retention(RUNTIME) @Target(TYPE_USE)  @interface B { }
>>
>> It's even a little stranger in that @A and @B aren't those "silly
>> annotations" with type and decl targets, only TYPE_USE.
>>
>> The larger case coverage more test cases but the issue seems the same, too
>> few type annotations and too many  annotations.
>> For now, the larger case as is does not run the repeated annotation
>> scenarios:
>>
>>    59     Boolean [][] bRepeat = new Boolean[][]{
>>    60                  /* no repeats    */ {false, false, false, false,
>> false, false}
>>    61                  /* repeat A,C,TA */ //{true,  false, true,  false,
>> true,  false}
>>    62                  /* repeat B,D,TB  {false, true,  false, true,  false,
>> true}, */
>>    63                  /* repeat all     {true,  true,  true,  true,  true,
>> true}*/
>>
>> only the non-repeated ones.  However, as is, it might be helpful in testing
>> the fix for this.
>>
>> -steve
>
>
> --
> http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl