8387749: [lworld] ValueBased.html should be reevaluated for its specification of value class constructors

[liach]

ValueBased talks about constructor avoidance but does not specify the reason. It's better to include the reason because it's not straightforward from the fact that there's no binary incompatibility.

Also InvalidClassException benefits from descriptions about strictly-initialized fields.

---

• I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the OpenJDK Interim AI Policy.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Committer)

Issue

• JDK-8387749: [lworld] ValueBased.html should be reevaluated for its specification of value class constructors (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

• Dan Smith (@dansmithcode - Committer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla.git pull/2631/head:pull/2631
$ git checkout pull/2631

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/2631
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla.git pull/2631/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 2631

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 2631

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2631.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

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

[openjdk]

@liach 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:

8387749: [lworld] ValueBased.html should be reevaluated for its specification of value class constructors

Reviewed-by: dlsmith

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 2 new commits pushed to the lworld branch:

• 246398f: 8388419: [lworld] cherry-pick JDK-8388347 Remove enablePreview from TestEnableNativeAccessJarManifest
• 46bc27f: 8388380: [lworld] Improve the documentation of jdk.internal.value.Deserializer annotation

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the lworld branch.
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 lworld branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (faf0d2c5)
• 01: Full - Incremental (5a87b226)
• 00: Full (fe7205a5)

[liach]

Hi @jaikiran, can you help review this?

[liach]

Thanks for the reviews! FYI @jaikiran even though you wishes to review, we need this for CSR's APIDiff so I will go ahead and integrate.

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit dd75299.
Since your change was applied there have been 2 commits pushed to the lworld branch:

• 246398f: 8388419: [lworld] cherry-pick JDK-8388347 Remove enablePreview from TestEnableNativeAccessJarManifest
• 46bc27f: 8388380: [lworld] Improve the documentation of jdk.internal.value.Deserializer annotation

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@liach Pushed as commit dd75299.

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