(14) RFR JDK-8229396: jdeps ignores multi-release when generate-module-info used on command line

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(14) RFR JDK-8229396: jdeps ignores multi-release when generate-module-info used on command line

Mandy Chung
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8229396/webrev.00/index.html

This fixes jdeps --generate-module-info option to read
a multi-release JAR with the version specified at --multi-release
option.  Also it enhances jdeps to report missing dependences as
other options such as --list-deps.

Thanks
Mandy




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (14) RFR JDK-8229396: jdeps ignores multi-release when generate-module-info used on command line

Alan Bateman
On 09/01/2020 02:28, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8229396/webrev.00/index.html
>
> This fixes jdeps --generate-module-info option to read
> a multi-release JAR with the version specified at --multi-release
> option.  Also it enhances jdeps to report missing dependences as
> other options such as --list-deps.
I think this looks okay but one thing to check is "dependencies" vs
"dependences" in the error messages. I know I've got that wrong several
times so I might not be the best person to check that point.

-Alan.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (14) RFR JDK-8229396: jdeps ignores multi-release when generate-module-info used on command line

Mandy Chung


On 1/10/20 7:09 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:

> On 09/01/2020 02:28, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8229396/webrev.00/index.html
>>
>> This fixes jdeps --generate-module-info option to read
>> a multi-release JAR with the version specified at --multi-release
>> option.  Also it enhances jdeps to report missing dependences as
>> other options such as --list-deps.
> I think this looks okay but one thing to check is "dependencies" vs
> "dependences" in the error messages. I know I've got that wrong
> several times so I might not be the best person to check that point.

Thanks.

This patch has these warning/error messages:
   "Missing dependencies from m are ignored"
   "Missing dependencies: classes not found from the module path."

Any better/correct message?

Or I can fix them in the future.

Mandy