Uploaded image for project: 'Code Tools'
  1. Code Tools
  2. CODETOOLS-7901381

More accurate syntactic validation of JDK bugs by jcheck

    Details

    • Type: Enhancement
    • Status: In Progress
    • Priority: P4
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: tools
    • Labels:
      None
    • Subcomponent:
    • Understanding:
      Fix Understood

      Description

      Getting an old rfe into JBS, before bugtraq was decommissioned JDK-related bugs only got into the 72xxxxx range, strictly less than 7300000. We staggered the starting bug values of the various jbs projects that host imported JDK bugs. The JDK project starts at 8000000; the other projects at intermediate values between 7300000 and 8000000:

          CODETOOLS 7900000
          INTJDK 7600000
          JCK 7300000
          JDK 8000000
          Java Incidents 9000000

      Therefore, a more precise syntactic check would be to not just check for a 7-digit bug number with the right initial digit, but to check for something like

          [1, 4, 5, 6, 8][0-9]{6} OR
          7[0-2][0-9]{5}

      which would exclude bugs from all the other projects for years to come.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          darcy Joe Darcy added a comment -
          The regex changes needed are

          < bug_check = re.compile("([0-9]{7}): \S.*$")
          ---
          > bug_check = re.compile("(([14568][0-9]{6})|(7[0-2][0-9]{5})): \S.*$")
          Show
          darcy Joe Darcy added a comment - The regex changes needed are < bug_check = re.compile("([0-9]{7}): \S.*$") --- > bug_check = re.compile("(([14568][0-9]{6})|(7[0-2][0-9]{5})): \S.*$")
          Hide
          darcy Joe Darcy added a comment -
          At the time of writing all open + closed JDK 9 changesets pass under the more stringent syntactic check above.
          Show
          darcy Joe Darcy added a comment - At the time of writing all open + closed JDK 9 changesets pass under the more stringent syntactic check above.

            People

            • Assignee:
              darcy Joe Darcy
              Reporter:
              darcy Joe Darcy
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated: