On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 06:55:02 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just tried to make the test code less verbose / repetitive :-) Updated
>> accordingly.
>
> Thank you, this is much better. One other thing that will simplify it further
> is to drop the posAtLimit parameter. Instead,
> testDefineClassWithCustomLoaderByteBuffer can capture the bb position and
> limit, then test their values after the defineClass, e.g.
>
> if (bb.isDirect() || bb.hasArray()) {
> assertEquals(originalPos, bb.position());
> } else {
> assertEquals(originalLimit, bb.position());
> }
> assertEquals(originalLimit, bb.limit());
>
> This will test long-standing (and undocumented) behavior. I created
> JDK-8352583 on the spec issue. It would be too risky to change behavior and
> advance the position. There may be some flexibility to not advance the
> position for the read-only buffer case, but we would need to work through the
> compatibility impacts of that. The fallback is to just document long standing
> behavior.
updated as suggested.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27569#discussion_r2425464873
