webrev for type-annotations, repeating type-annotations test

[Alex Buckley]

Hi Steve,

It seems to me there is still quite a lot of code duplication in 
ClassfileTestHelper for the 3-arg and 4-arg versions of test().

The writeup of CombinationsTargetTest is helpful, especially the sample 
output. It shows there is a lot going on: i) annotation types which are 
declaration-site v. use-site v. decl-and-use-site, and ii) annotations 
which occur once v. multiple times v. jointly with other annotations. 
Two questions:

1. Could you expand "4) inside method bodies" to make clear what 
locations are tested with type annotations?

2. Is it possible to "limit" the test generation of 
CombinationsTargetTest to just (say) use-site annotations occurring once 
in cast expressions ? If a "simple" scenario like that is easy to run 
and verify, it would give confidence that complex scenarios like the 
sample output are correct.

Alex

On 1/9/2013 5:00 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
> I posted a second webrev,
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8005085/webrev.02/
> with a webrevComment.txt file and removed the statics. :)
>
> -steve
>
> On 1/9/2013 12:32 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for publishing this webrev. (And congrats on becoming an Author
>> in this project!)
>>
>> CombinationsTargetTest is pretty complicated. Could you please give a
>> description and examples of the combinations it generates?
>>
>> DeadCode, NewTypeArguments, TypeCasts, and Wildcards all use static
>> fields in their superclass (ClassfileTestHelper) to communicate
>> expected results to ClassfileTestHelper.countAnnotations(). Is it
>> necessary to use static fields for this purpose?
>>
>> 8005681 is interesting. You're saying that "new @Foo @Foo @Bar @Bar
>> C()" causes all four annotations to be dropped? Werner cannot access
>> JBS, so it would be helpful if you could send test cases to this list.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 1/8/2013 3:45 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
>>> This test supercedes the test in the previous review request (which was
>>> via mail).
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8005085/
>>>
>>> In writing a test for repeating type annotations I found it could cover
>>> several scenarios in one test, so this coverage
>>> mixed target types on type usages and type parameters as well as
>>> repeating type annotations in those usages.
>>>
>>> Due to http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8005681 a few
>>> scenarios are commented out.
>>> In addition to any other changes or suggestions, we may want for that to
>>> be fixed so the whole test can be considered.
>>>
>>> This also include the previous refactoring of the classfile tests into a
>>> helper, ClassfileTestHelper.java.
>>> This makes the tests much simpler looking and easier to add new tests.
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions.
>>>
>>> -steve
>