Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Address coverage gap in GraalVM for FileSystemProviders #876

Open
mpeddada1 opened this issue Aug 12, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Address coverage gap in GraalVM for FileSystemProviders #876

mpeddada1 opened this issue Aug 12, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@mpeddada1
Copy link
Contributor

Releasing #854 which migrates from using graalvm jdk 11 ce images to graalvm for jdk 17 community image caused tests in java-storage-nio to fail (See googleapis/java-storage-nio#1447).

Options:

  • Add java-storage-nio tests to GraalVM cloudbuild jobs.
  • [More lightweight] Introduce canary test to native image compilation with FileSystemProvider. The use of this class causes some classes to be initializes at build time during native image compilation. This has also resulted in varying behavior based on which GraalVM for JDK version is used. Providers loaded by FileSystemProvider not handled correctly in native image oracle/graal#5134 is one known issue where the recommended -H:-AddAllFileSystemProviders parameter works in JDK 21 to address the build-time failures related to FileSystemProviders but continues to fail in JDK 17.
@mpeddada1 mpeddada1 added priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. labels Aug 12, 2024
@diegomarquezp diegomarquezp self-assigned this Oct 30, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants