8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description #7399

sashamatveev · 2022-02-09T07:37:42Z

Added ability to override description for additional launchers via "description" property.

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed
Change requires a CSR request to be approved

Issues

JDK-8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description
JDK-8281672: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description (CSR)

Reviewers

Alexey Semenyuk (@alexeysemenyukoracle - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7399/head:pull/7399
$ git checkout pull/7399

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/7399
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7399/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 7399

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 7399

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7399.diff

…iption

bridgekeeper · 2022-02-09T07:38:30Z

👋 Welcome back almatvee! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2022-02-09T07:40:29Z

@sashamatveev The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2022-02-09T07:44:32Z

Webrevs

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-09T12:33:41Z

I don't quite understand how these changes affect the description of launcher executables on Windows. I'd expect changes at least in

jdk/src/jdk.jpackage/windows/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/WindowsAppImageBuilder.java

Line 97 in 739769c

public void prepareApplicationFiles(Map<String, ? super Object> params)

. Can you elaborate, please?

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-09T12:35:59Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/share/AddLauncherTest.java

@@ -89,14 +90,17 @@ public void test() {

        new AdditionalLauncher("Baz2")
                .setDefaultArguments()
+                .addRawProperties(Map.entry("description", "Baz2 Description"))


How expected description is verified in the test?

I do not think that we have ability to check description on executable files. I added it for manual verification.

Powershell can be used to extract the description from an executable. E.g.:

$ powershell -NoLogo -NoProfile -Command "(Get-Item build\\windows-x64\\images\\jdk\\bin\\java.exe).VersionInfo | select FileDescription" FileDescription --------------- Java(TM) Platform SE binary

You can create jdk.jpackage.test.AdditionalLauncher.verifyDescription() function that will call this script and call this function from jdk.jpackage.test.AdditionalLauncher.verify().

kevinrushforth · 2022-02-09T12:51:52Z

This will need a CSR.

sashamatveev · 2022-02-09T19:01:00Z

AddLauncherArguments.java class reads parameters for additional launcher from property file and if this class contains particular property we will prefer it when generating additional launchers. Thus I do not think that anything else needs to be change. I tested it and it works fine. Testing was done manually.

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-09T19:44:28Z

Unfortunately, manual testing adds zero value to automated test runs. This feature can be covered with automated tests so it should be.

…iption [v2]

sashamatveev · 2022-02-11T21:19:18Z

Added automated tests for .exe files in Windows and .desktop files on Linux.

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-11T22:09:40Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/AdditionalLauncher.java

+                        }
+                    }
+                }
+                TKit.assertTrue(descriptionIsValid, "Invalid file description");


I'd use TKit.assertEquals() to compare the expected description with the actual one. This will produce a meaningful error message in log output in case they don't match.

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-11T22:11:44Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/AdditionalLauncher.java

+        Map.Entry<String, String> entry = rawProperties.stream()
+                .filter(item -> item.getKey().equals(key))
+                .findFirst().orElse(null);
+
+        return entry == null ? null : entry.getValue();


This can be simply
rawProperties.stream().findAny(item -> item.getKey().equals(key)).map(e -> e.getValue()).orElse(null);

Or slightly better:

public String getRawPropertyValue(String key, Supplier<String> getDefault) { return rawProperties.stream().findAny(item -> item.getKey().equals(key)).map(e -> e.getValue()).orElseGet(getDefault); }

Then we can create a function that will return the expected description of an additional launcher:

private String getDesciption(JPackageCommand cmd) { return getRawPropertyValue("description", () -> cmd.getArgumentValue("--description", unused -> "Unknown")); }

This will let you avoid if (expectedDescription != null) checks and always verify launcher description.

Fixed as suggested, except app name is used instead of "Unknown", since our default description is app name.

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-11T22:13:39Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/AdditionalLauncher.java

+                Path launcherPath = cmd.appLauncherPath(name);
+                Executor exec = Executor.of("powershell",
+                                             "-NoLogo",
+                                             "-NoProfile",
+                                             "-Command",
+                                             "(Get-Item \\\"" +
+                                             launcherPath.toAbsolutePath() +
+                                             "\\\").VersionInfo | select FileDescription");
+                boolean descriptionIsValid = false;
+                List<String> lines = exec.executeAndGetOutput();
+                if (lines != null) {
+                    for (int i = 0; i < lines.size(); i++) {
+                        if (lines.get(i).trim().equals("FileDescription")) {
+                            i += 2; // Skip "---------------" and move to description
+                            descriptionIsValid =
+                                    expectedDescription.equals(lines.get(i).trim());
+                        }
+                    }


This piece of code can be placed in WindowsHelper.getExecutableDesciption(Path pathToExeFile) function to make it reusable in other tests if needed. This way it can be used to verify the description of the main launcher.

if (lines != null) check is rudimentary.

Instead of running the loop, I'd simply check the output second from the last line for "---" and if so, would return the last line of the output. Otherwise would throw an exception indicating the command returned an unexpected result.

I kept original implementation. Actually, powershell returns 6 lines: empty, FileDescription, ----, Actual Description, empty, empty. I think it is better to make sure FileDescription is present and go from top to bottom in case if output can be something like: empty, ErrorMessage, ---, Actual error message, empty, empty.

…iption [v3]

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-15T15:41:51Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/AdditionalLauncher.java

+            String actualDescription =
+                    WindowsHelper.getExecutableDesciption(launcherPath);
+            TKit.assertEquals(expectedDescription, actualDescription,
+                    "Invalid file description");


The message should be the name of an action taken, not the error description. The testing framework will build the error message itself. So it can be Check file description of <launcher_path>. You can use TKit.assertDirectoryExists() as a reference -

jdk/test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/TKit.java

Line 683 in bc61484

public static void assertDirectoryExists(Path path) {

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-15T15:48:02Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/WindowsHelper.java

+            }
+        }
+
+        TKit.assertNotNull(description, "Failed to get file description");


Failure to get the executable's description through powersehll script is not an issue of a test case being executed. This is the testing framework issue. Throwing RuntimeException with the message containing file path will be the appropriate error handling. Having a file name in the exception message will help to localize the issue.

Fixed. Error message also fixed for description check.

…iption [v4]

openjdk · 2022-02-17T06:50:41Z

@sashamatveev this pull request can not be integrated into master due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout JDK-8279995
git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

alexeysemenyukoracle · 2022-02-17T17:53:57Z

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/helpers/jdk/jpackage/test/WindowsHelper.java

+    public static String getExecutableDesciption(Path pathToExeFile) {
+        String description = null;
+        Executor exec = Executor.of("powershell",
+                "-NoLogo",
+                "-NoProfile",
+                "-Command",
+                "(Get-Item \\\""
+                + pathToExeFile.toAbsolutePath()
+                + "\\\").VersionInfo | select FileDescription");
+        List<String> lines = exec.executeAndGetOutput();
+        for (int i = 0; i < lines.size(); i++) {
+            if (lines.get(i).trim().equals("FileDescription")) {
+                i += 2; // Skip "---------------" and move to description
+                description = lines.get(i).trim();
+            }
+        }
+
+        if (description == null) {
+            throw new RuntimeException(String.format(
+                    "Failed to get file description of [%s]", pathToExeFile));
+        }
+
+        return description;
+    }


How about this:

public static String getExecutableDesciption(Path pathToExeFile) { Executor exec = Executor.of("powershell", "-NoLogo", "-NoProfile", "-Command", "(Get-Item \\\"" + pathToExeFile.toAbsolutePath() + "\\\").VersionInfo | select FileDescription"); var lineIt = exec.dumpOutput().executeAndGetOutput().iterator(); while (lineIt.hasNext()) { var line = lineIt.next(); if (line.trim().equals("FileDescription")) { // Skip "---------------" and move to the description value lineIt.next(); var description = lineIt.next().trim(); if (lineIt.hasNext()) { throw new RuntimeException("Unexpected input"); } return description; } } throw new RuntimeException(String.format( "Failed to get file description of [%s]", pathToExeFile)); }

Added Executor.dumpOutput() call to save the output of powershell command in the test log for easier debugging.
No null initialized description variable. No iteration over the list using the index. Check for the end of the output.

Fixed. Except I removed if (lineIt.hasNext()) { throw new RuntimeException("Unexpected input"); }, since there are empty lines after description in output and this check triggers exception.

…iption [v5]

openjdk · 2022-02-25T15:52:30Z

@sashamatveev This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description

Reviewed-by: asemenyuk

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 89 new commits pushed to the master branch:

e96c599: 8271232: JFR: Scrub recording data
735e86b: 8282345: handle latest VS2022 in abstract_vm_version
b96b743: 8281015: Further simplify NMT backend
9471f24: 8280684: JfrRecorderService failes with guarantee(num_written > 0) when no space left on device.
3efd6aa: 8282347: AARCH64: Untaken branch in has_negatives stub
cd36be4: 8206187: javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/DefaultAgentFilterTest.java fails with Port already in use
bf19fc6: 8280357: user.home = "?" when running with systemd DynamicUser=true
b6843a1: 8005885: enhance PrintCodeCache to print more data
23995f8: 8281525: Enable Zc:strictStrings flag in Visual Studio build
20e78f7: 8282307: Parallel: Incorrect discovery mode in PCReferenceProcessor
... and 79 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/1864481df10d2f616cbfdecebf3bebbae04de5e1...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

sashamatveev · 2022-02-25T20:48:48Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2022-02-25T20:50:13Z

Going to push as commit fb8bf81.
Since your change was applied there have been 90 commits pushed to the master branch:

441e485: 8281739: JFR: Use message with Objects.requireNonNull
e96c599: 8271232: JFR: Scrub recording data
735e86b: 8282345: handle latest VS2022 in abstract_vm_version
b96b743: 8281015: Further simplify NMT backend
9471f24: 8280684: JfrRecorderService failes with guarantee(num_written > 0) when no space left on device.
3efd6aa: 8282347: AARCH64: Untaken branch in has_negatives stub
cd36be4: 8206187: javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/DefaultAgentFilterTest.java fails with Port already in use
bf19fc6: 8280357: user.home = "?" when running with systemd DynamicUser=true
b6843a1: 8005885: enhance PrintCodeCache to print more data
23995f8: 8281525: Enable Zc:strictStrings flag in Visual Studio build
... and 80 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/1864481df10d2f616cbfdecebf3bebbae04de5e1...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2022-02-25T20:50:36Z

@sashamatveev Pushed as commit fb8bf81.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding descr…

a764be5

…iption

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Feb 9, 2022

openjdk bot added the core-libs [email protected] label Feb 9, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle reviewed Feb 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Feb 11, 2022

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding descr…

dbb3690

…iption [v2]

alexeysemenyukoracle reviewed Feb 11, 2022

View reviewed changes

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding descr…

c5fea59

…iption [v3]

alexeysemenyukoracle reviewed Feb 15, 2022

View reviewed changes

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding descr…

6d4b4d3

…iption [v4]

openjdk bot added the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Feb 17, 2022

Merge master

401db24

openjdk bot removed the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Feb 17, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle reviewed Feb 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot removed the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Feb 23, 2022

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding descr…

e4893e5

…iption [v5]

alexeysemenyukoracle approved these changes Feb 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot closed this Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Feb 25, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description #7399

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description #7399

sashamatveev commented Feb 9, 2022 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 9, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 9, 2022

mlbridge bot commented Feb 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 9, 2022

sashamatveev Feb 9, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 9, 2022

kevinrushforth commented Feb 9, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 9, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 11, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 11, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 11, 2022

sashamatveev Feb 15, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

sashamatveev Feb 15, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 15, 2022

sashamatveev Feb 17, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 17, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 17, 2022

sashamatveev Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 25, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 25, 2022

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description #7399

8279995: jpackage --add-launcher option should allow overriding description #7399

Conversation

sashamatveev commented Feb 9, 2022 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issues

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 9, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 9, 2022

mlbridge bot commented Feb 9, 2022 • edited Loading

Webrevs

alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth commented Feb 9, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 9, 2022

alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 11, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 15, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Feb 17, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Feb 25, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Feb 25, 2022

sashamatveev commented Feb 9, 2022 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Feb 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alexeysemenyukoracle Feb 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading