RFR: 8231640: (prop) Canonical property storage [v21]
alanb at openjdk.java.net
Wed Sep 22 09:50:02 UTC 2021
On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 03:52:17 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The commit in this PR implements the proposal for enhancement that was discussed in the core-libs-dev mailing list recently, for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231640
>> At a high level - the `store()` APIs in `Properties` have been modified to now look for the `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` environment variable. If that env variable is set, then instead of writing out the current date time as a date comment, the `store()` APIs instead will use the value set for this env variable to parse it to a `Date` and write out the string form of such a date. The implementation here uses the `d MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss 'GMT'` date format and `Locale.ROOT` to format and write out such a date. This should provide reproducibility whenever the `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` is set. Furthermore, intentionally, no changes in the date format of the "current date" have been done.
>> These modified `store()` APIs work in the presence of the `SecurityManager` too. The caller is expected to have a read permission on the `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` environment variable. If the caller doesn't have that permission, then the implementation of these `store()` APIs will write out the "current date" and will ignore any value that has been set for the `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` env variable. This should allow for backward compatibility of existing applications, where, when they run under a `SecurityManager` and perhaps with an existing restrictive policy file, the presence of `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` shouldn't impact their calls to the `store()` APIs.
>> The modified `store()` APIs will also ignore any value for `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` that cannot be parsed to an `long` value. In such cases, the `store()` APIs will write out the "current date" and ignore the value set for this environment variable. No exceptions will be thrown for such invalid values. This is an additional backward compatibility precaution to prevent any rogue value for `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from breaking applications.
>> An additional change in the implementation of these `store()` APIs and unrelated to the date comment, is that these APIs will now write out the property keys in a deterministic order. The keys will be written out in the natural ordering as specified by `java.lang.String#compareTo()` API.
>> The combination of the ordering of the property keys when written out and the usage of `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` environment value to determine the date comment should together allow for reproducibility of the output generated by these `store()` APIs.
>> New jtreg test classes have been introduced to verify these changes. The primary focus of `PropertiesStoreTest` is the ordering aspects of the property keys that are written out. On the other hand `StoreReproducibilityTest` focuses on the reproducibility of the output generated by these APIs. The `StoreReproducibilityTest` runs these tests both in the presence and absence of `SecurityManager`. Plus, in the presence of SecurityManager, it tests both the scenarios where the caller is granted the requisite permission and in other case not granted that permission.
>> These new tests and existing tests under `test/jdk/java/util/Properties/` pass with these changes.
>>  https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2021-August/080758.html
>>  https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> Roger's suggestion to reword the implSpec text
src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Properties.java line 928:
> 926: // in the natural order of their key. Else, we consider that the subclassed implementation may potentially
> 927: // have returned a differently ordered entries and so we just use the iteration order of the returned instance.
> 928: if (entries instanceof Collections.SynchronizedSet<?> ss
Would it be possible to re-format the comment to keep the lines a bit inconsistent, it's just a bit annoying to have overly long lines just here.
More information about the core-libs-dev