review request for 8010225 test in typeAnnotations/failures do not test TYPE_USE

[Werner Dietl]

Hi Steve,

sorry about the delay! I've added the patch in the type-annotations repository:

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/8793062538fa

Are tests for receivers in static methods somewhere else now?

Please do let me know if you notice any mistakes or new failures.

cu, WMD.


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Steve Sides <steve.sides at oracle.com> wrote:
> Can these be put back as is or need more changes? They are simple fixes to
> negative tests.
> -steve
>
>
> On 9/23/2013 11:49 AM, Steve Sides wrote:
>>
>> This makes the noted changes:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8010225.3/
>>
>> Also, I took out any changes to CantAnnotateStaticClass.java/out and this
>> change leaves it as is. I saw Werner sent a much more comprehensive test for
>> this as a mail attachement. It was CantAnnotateStaticClass2.java.
>> Werner, could you put that test back as CantAnnotateStaticClass.java/.out
>> since your test was inclusive of the first and that first was never
>> completed (no final .out file)?
>>
>> -steve
>>
>> On 9/17/2013 12:29 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>> To all: there's a bug in case 4 below.
>>>
>>> On 9/17/2013 12:06 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Got it. While whittling on this, I have another question about the
>>>> compiler's behavior.
>>>> 1. If I qualify the (not type) annotation,
>>>>
>>>>    @Scopes.UniqueInner
>>>>    class Scopes<T extends @Scopes.UniqueInner Object> {
>>>>       @interface UniqueInner { };
>>>>    }
>>>> I get 1 error, "Scopes.java:11:24:
>>>> compiler.err.annotation.type.not.applicable". This seems correct as I'm
>>>> using an annotation on a type usage, and the one on the class is okay.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. The annotation on the upper bound of T is illegal because
>>> the Scopes.UniqueInner annotation type is applicable only in locations which
>>> existed in Java SE 7 (such as type declarations) and not in new locations in
>>> Java SE 8 (such as type uses).
>>>
>>>> 2. If I use the annotation unqualified, I get 3 errors, two for
>>>> "cant.resolve..." and the one above again. I can see that this can also
>>>> be correct.
>>>>
>>>> Scopes.java:10:2: compiler.err.cant.resolve: kindname.class,
>>>> UniqueInner, ,  // on the class
>>>> Scopes.java:11:25: compiler.err.cant.resolve: kindname.class,
>>>> UniqueInner, , // on the bound
>>>> Scopes.java:11:24:
>>>> compiler.err.annotation.type.not.applicable               // not a type
>>>> annotation(I assumed)?
>>>> 3 errors
>>>
>>>
>>> The scope of the @interface declaration is the body of class Scopes.
>>> Therefore, the simple name "UniqueInner" is not in scope before the { of the
>>> declaration of Scopes. All three errors are correct.
>>>
>>>> 3. If I use a qualified type annotation,
>>>> @Scopes.UniqueInner
>>>> class Scopes<T extends @Scopes.UniqueInner Object> {
>>>>      @Target(ElementType.TYPE_USE)
>>>>      @interface UniqueInner { };
>>>> }
>>>> it compiles without error.
>>>
>>>
>>> As it should.
>>>
>>>> 4. However, if I use an unqualified type annotation,
>>>> @UniqueInner
>>>> class Scopes<T extends @UniqueInner Object> {
>>>>      @Target(ElementType.TYPE_USE)
>>>>      @interface UniqueInner { };
>>>> }
>>>>   I get the same 3 errors as the unqualified annotation:
>>>>
>>>> Scopes.java:10:2: compiler.err.cant.resolve: kindname.class,
>>>> UniqueInner, ,
>>>> Scopes.java:11:25: compiler.err.cant.resolve: kindname.class,
>>>> UniqueInner, ,
>>>> Scopes.java:11:24: compiler.err.annotation.type.not.applicable
>>>> 3 errors
>>>>
>>>> Why should I get "compiler.err.annotation.type.not.applicable" in this
>>>> last scenario?  For 1. I kind of assumed the third error meant it was
>>>> not applicable because it was not a type annotation.  Is it not
>>>> applicable for reasons other than not being TYPE_USE?
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right to ponder what's going on. The third error, about
>>> applicability, is a bug.
>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of using it as below (and adding a postivie version with
>>>> qualified name),
>>>>
>>>> @UniqueInner
>>>> class Scopes<T extends @UniqueInner Object>  {
>>>>      // Unqualified @UniqueInner is not accessible to the class .
>>>>      // One has to use @Scopes.UniqueInner.
>>>>      @Target(ElementType.TYPE_USE)
>>>>      @interface UniqueInner { };
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> but I'm unsure about that third error and would like to verify it is as
>>>> expected.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please add this test. The comment however should not mention
>>> accessibility, which is a totally different concept. Say "The simple name
>>> UniqueInner is not in scope on the header of class Scopes, so @UniqueInner
>>> is not meaningful there. One must use the qualified name, as in
>>> @Scopes.UniqueInner."
>>>
>>> In addition, the type parameter T is also out of UniqueInner's scope. To
>>> ensure that annotations on the class declaration and annotations on the type
>>> parameter declaration are handled consistently, @UniqueInner should be
>>> written on T as well.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>>
>



-- 
http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl