Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[MCOMPILER-561] - Add new rebuild detection for bytecode changes #219

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jorsol
Copy link
Contributor

@jorsol jorsol commented Dec 19, 2023

TODO: check the scenario where two executions compiles different bytecode on the same output (MCOMPILER-275_separate-moduleinfo).

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

  • Make sure there is a JIRA issue filed
    for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
    require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
    pulling in other changes.
  • Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
  • Format the pull request title like [MCOMPILER-XXX] - Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles,
    where you replace MCOMPILER-XXX with the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practice
    is to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
    commit message.
  • Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
  • Run mvn clean verify to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will
    be performed on your pull request automatically.
  • You have run the integration tests successfully (mvn -Prun-its clean verify).

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

Signed-off-by: Jorge Solórzano <jorsol@gmail.com>
Map<Path, JavaClassfileVersion> pathVersionMap = walk.filter(file -> "class"
.equals(FileUtils.extension(file.getFileName().toString())))
.limit(MAX_FILE_WALK_LIMIT)
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Function.identity(), JavaClassfileVersion::of));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe instead of checking bytecode of classes we can store current JDK version used to compile and next time verify if is the same.

We also should add an IT for multi-releases compilation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a really good approach, I'm making complex bytecode checks when simply storing the current JDK, and verifying next time would do the trick.

Closing this in favor of that approach (will open a new PR later).

@jorsol jorsol closed this Dec 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants