Bug 83939 - [1.5][compiler] null is allowed as a legal element value in annotations
Summary: [1.5][compiler] null is allowed as a legal element value in annotations
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 major (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.1 M5   Edit
Assignee: Philipe Mulet CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-28 10:52 EST by Jon Nall CLA
Modified: 2005-02-15 06:35 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments
Test case (104 bytes, text/plain)
2005-01-28 16:50 EST, Olivier Thomann CLA 		no flags Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jon Nall CLA 2005-01-28 10:52:10 EST 
JLS3 states on page 283 that for annotations:
Note that null is not a legal element value for any element type.

However the following is allowed in eclipse 3.1M4:
public @interface Foo
{
    int[] bar() default null;
}


also, null is incorrectly allowed in the following context:
@Foo(bar=null)
int baz;

javac-1.5.0 fails in both of these cases.
Comment 1 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-01-28 11:41:22 EST 
With latest I get:
----------
1. ERROR in c:\tests_sources\X.java
 (at line 3)
	int[] bar() default null;
	                    ^^^^
The value for annotation attribute X.bar must be a constant expression
----------
1 problem
Comment 2 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-01-28 11:59:29 EST 
Closing as WORKSFORME.
Added regression test.
Thanks for reporting the problem.
Comment 3 Jon Nall CLA 2005-01-28 14:59:59 EST 
well, that's what i get for trying to simplify my testcase without actually
checking in eclipse. here's the real reproducer. sorry for the confusion.

@interface Foo
{
    
}

@interface Bar
{
    Foo[] foo() default null;
}

@Bar(foo=null)
class Blah
{
    // ...
}
Comment 4 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-01-28 16:50:21 EST 
I'll try to reproduce.
Comment 5 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-01-28 16:50:57 EST 
Created attachment 17566 [details]
Test case
Comment 6 Philipe Mulet CLA 2005-01-28 18:59:38 EST 
Indeed, we did not properly check the annotation value scenario.
Added AnnotationTest#test108-109.
Comment 7 Philipe Mulet CLA 2005-01-28 18:59:51 EST 
Fixed
Comment 8 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2005-02-15 06:35:12 EST 
Verified in I20050214