Support JDK 17 PermittedSubclasses in classfiles
#10105
Conversation
0cf154b to
da5ed4f
Compare
sealed feature in Java sources and Java-generated classfiles
|
Does Scala's |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had some WIP branch for this, sorry I didn't share... LGTM already.
In my branch I included Flags.SEALED in the modifiers of the ClassDef, which triggers population of children in the namer (IIRC) and enables exhaustivity checking. However, that's not enough, because Java symbols are only completed lazily, so only completed symbols are going to be known children. We can defer that to later I guess.
src/compiler/scala/tools/nsc/symtab/classfile/ClassfileParser.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@som-snytt care to respond to the review feedback? this one would be really nice to get into 2.13.11 |
|
That is not sarcastic 👍 . I don't know if we need to stipulate that every time now? |
|
Is that a reference to https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/generation-z-ers-giving-passive-25249315 ? In my world, thumbs-up are always assumed to be sincere 👍 |
|
I'm aware that 👎 is always sincere. |
0710c7b to
20e7535
Compare
|
Children added per PermittedSubclasses. Drafting to support permits clause. |
|
@som-snytt this still seems like a high-value PR to me; let us know if you could use any input from the team in helping it get across the finish line |
|
@SethTisue thanks, I just checked out this branch today as part of my periodic attempt to "groom" and "reduce" my open PRs. Please let me know if 2.13.11 is imminent. |
20e7535 to
62288fd
Compare
62288fd to
7bba454
Compare
Well, it won't come out before 3.3.0. I started https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/scala-2-13-11-release-planning/6088 just now. |
|
With any luck, a rebase on top of #10310 will fix Travis-CI. :knockonwood: |
7bba454 to
a4ae8ef
Compare
|
This PR gets you to ISS, if you want to dock with Tiangong then you need the other PR. |
42bf9bb to
3afe1a7
Compare
|
@SethTisue rebased in honor of today's Starship test launch. Can we merge this? Then I can rebase the follow-up for mixed compilation. |
|
Just to provide some reference blog post on java sealed classes |
|
If we split up the support for Java
So I suggest removing the |
|
Since we're so close to release, having two separate PRs makes me uncomfortable as well. If there are two PRs, we can only merge the first one if it would be acceptable (if not ideal) to release even if the second PR has to be pushed to 2.13.12. But surely it makes the most sense to either include both, or neither? I think it's confusing to users to ship partial support. (Som, I understand that your intention is not to ship partial support, but regardless, I think being this close to release time forces us to be more careful than we might otherwise be.) |
3afe1a7 to
80ee36a
Compare
|
Reverted to Aug 10, when flag was not set. |
sealed feature in Java sources and Java-generated classfilessealed feature in Java-generated classfiles
sealed feature in Java-generated classfilesPermittedSubclasses in classfiles
|
The flaky test
but also
|
Accept (non-)sealed in Java sources. Defer setting sealed from source to follow-up PR, which will populate child classes lazily.
80ee36a to
5849a58
Compare
|
a bit of followup at #10383 |
|
@SethTisue from now on, I'm only going to use the word "support" in the sense of "moral support". |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to upgrade Scala to 2.13.11 - https://www.scala-lang.org/news/2.13.11 Additionally, this pr adds a new suppression rule for warning message: `Implicit definition should have explicit type`, this is a new compile check introduced by scala/scala#10083, we must fix it when we upgrading to use Scala 3, ### Why are the changes needed? This release improves collections, adds support for JDK 20 and 21, adds support for JDK 17 `sealed`: - scala/scala#10363 - scala/scala#10184 - scala/scala#10397 - scala/scala#10348 - scala/scala#10105 There are 2 known issues in this version: - scala/bug#12800 - scala/bug#12799 For the first one, there is no compilation warning messages related to `match may not be exhaustive` in Spark compile log, and for the second one, there is no case of `method.isAnnotationPresent(Deprecated.class)` in Spark code, there is just https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/8c84d2c9349d7b607db949c2e114df781f23e438/sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/JavaTypeInference.scala#L130 in Spark Code, and I checked `javax.annotation.Nonnull` no this issue. So I think These two issues will not affect Spark itself, but this doesn't mean it won't affect the code written by end users themselves The full release notes as follows: - https://github.com/scala/scala/releases/tag/v2.13.11 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, this is a Scala version change. ### How was this patch tested? - Existing Test - Checked Java 8/17 + Scala 2.13.11 using GA, all test passed Java 8 + Scala 2.13.11: https://github.com/LuciferYang/spark/runs/14337279564 Java 17 + Scala 2.13.11: https://github.com/LuciferYang/spark/runs/14343012195 Closes #41626 from LuciferYang/SPARK-40497. Authored-by: yangjie01 <yangjie01@baidu.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to upgrade Scala to 2.13.11 - https://www.scala-lang.org/news/2.13.11 Additionally, this pr adds a new suppression rule for warning message: `Implicit definition should have explicit type`, this is a new compile check introduced by scala/scala#10083, we must fix it when we upgrading to use Scala 3, ### Why are the changes needed? This release improves collections, adds support for JDK 20 and 21, adds support for JDK 17 `sealed`: - scala/scala#10363 - scala/scala#10184 - scala/scala#10397 - scala/scala#10348 - scala/scala#10105 There are 2 known issues in this version: - scala/bug#12800 - scala/bug#12799 For the first one, there is no compilation warning messages related to `match may not be exhaustive` in Spark compile log, and for the second one, there is no case of `method.isAnnotationPresent(Deprecated.class)` in Spark code, there is just https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/8c84d2c9349d7b607db949c2e114df781f23e438/sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/JavaTypeInference.scala#L130 in Spark Code, and I checked `javax.annotation.Nonnull` no this issue. So I think These two issues will not affect Spark itself, but this doesn't mean it won't affect the code written by end users themselves The full release notes as follows: - https://github.com/scala/scala/releases/tag/v2.13.11 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, this is a Scala version change. ### How was this patch tested? - Existing Test - Checked Java 8/17 + Scala 2.13.11 using GA, all test passed Java 8 + Scala 2.13.11: https://github.com/LuciferYang/spark/runs/14337279564 Java 17 + Scala 2.13.11: https://github.com/LuciferYang/spark/runs/14343012195 Closes apache#41626 from LuciferYang/SPARK-40497. Authored-by: yangjie01 <yangjie01@baidu.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to re-upgrade Scala to 2.13.11, after SPARK-45144 was merged, the build issues mentioned in #41943 should no longer exist. - https://www.scala-lang.org/news/2.13.11 Additionally, this pr adds a new suppression rule for warning message: `Implicit definition should have explicit type`, this is a new compile check introduced by scala/scala#10083, we must fix it when we upgrading to use Scala 3 ### Why are the changes needed? This release improves collections, adds support for JDK 20 and 21, adds support for JDK 17 `sealed`: - scala/scala#10363 - scala/scala#10184 - scala/scala#10397 - scala/scala#10348 - scala/scala#10105 There are 2 known issues in this version: - scala/bug#12800 - scala/bug#12799 For the first one, there is no compilation warning messages related to `match may not be exhaustive` in Spark compile log, and for the second one, there is no case of `method.isAnnotationPresent(Deprecated.class)` in Spark code, there is just https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/8c84d2c9349d7b607db949c2e114df781f23e438/sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/JavaTypeInference.scala#L130 in Spark Code, and I checked `javax.annotation.Nonnull` no this issue. So I think These two issues will not affect Spark itself, but this doesn't mean it won't affect the code written by end users themselves The full release notes as follows: - https://github.com/scala/scala/releases/tag/v2.13.11 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, this is a Scala version change. ### How was this patch tested? - Existing Test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #42918 from LuciferYang/SPARK-40497-2. Authored-by: yangjie01 <yangjie01@baidu.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
This PR aims to re-upgrade Scala to 2.13.11, after SPARK-45144 was merged, the build issues mentioned in apache#41943 should no longer exist. - https://www.scala-lang.org/news/2.13.11 Additionally, this pr adds a new suppression rule for warning message: `Implicit definition should have explicit type`, this is a new compile check introduced by scala/scala#10083, we must fix it when we upgrading to use Scala 3 This release improves collections, adds support for JDK 20 and 21, adds support for JDK 17 `sealed`: - scala/scala#10363 - scala/scala#10184 - scala/scala#10397 - scala/scala#10348 - scala/scala#10105 There are 2 known issues in this version: - scala/bug#12800 - scala/bug#12799 For the first one, there is no compilation warning messages related to `match may not be exhaustive` in Spark compile log, and for the second one, there is no case of `method.isAnnotationPresent(Deprecated.class)` in Spark code, there is just https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/8c84d2c9349d7b607db949c2e114df781f23e438/sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/JavaTypeInference.scala#L130 in Spark Code, and I checked `javax.annotation.Nonnull` no this issue. So I think These two issues will not affect Spark itself, but this doesn't mean it won't affect the code written by end users themselves The full release notes as follows: - https://github.com/scala/scala/releases/tag/v2.13.11 Yes, this is a Scala version change. - Existing Test No Closes apache#42918 from LuciferYang/SPARK-40497-2. Authored-by: yangjie01 <yangjie01@baidu.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Fixes scala/bug#12171
Fixes scala/bug#12159
Also adds test coverage for scala/bug#12474
ClassfileParserhint from #9228Implementation: a quick hack takes
non-sealedin Java sources as three tokens.