8299499: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.net API docs

[justin-curtis-lu]

Replacing deprecated constructors of primitive wrapper classes. Used valueOf() method as replacement.

Alternatively, auto boxing could have been used here as well. It would be beneficial to set a precedent for the other related doc bugs.

---

Progress

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

Issue

• JDK-8299499: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.net API docs

Reviewers

• Naoto Sato (@naotoj - Reviewer)
• Jaikiran Pai (@jaikiran - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/11866/head:pull/11866
$ git checkout pull/11866

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/11866
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/11866/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 11866

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 11866

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11866.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back justin-curtis-lu! 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]

@justin-curtis-lu The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• net

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.

[justin-curtis-lu]

I chose valueOf() because I thought it provided more clarity from a documentation standpoint. Open to any suggestions.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (b87b9e97)
• 00: Full (304a83c4)

[naotoj]

LGTM. Please modify the copyright year

[openjdk]

@justin-curtis-lu 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:

8299499: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.net API docs

Reviewed-by: naoto, jpai

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 33 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 7310131: 8299337: The java.awt.image.ColorModel#pData field is unused
• d086e82: 8299600: Use Objects.check*() where appropriate in java.io
• 4a95c74: 8299425: "LCMSImageLayout.isIntPacked" flag can be deleted
• d6d6eb4: 8299699: Test runtime/cds/appcds/WrongClasspath.java fails after JDK-8299329
• 8c70bf3: 8299544: Improve performance of CRC32C intrinsics (non-AVX-512) for small inputs
• d6e9f01: 8285416: [LOOM] Some nsk/jdi tests fail due to needing too many virtual threads
• ba03f42: 8299746: Accept unknown signatureAlgorithm in PKCS7 SignerInfo
• 3dcf700: 8299336: InputStream::DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE should be 16384
• 1e99729: 8299274: Add elements to resolved_references consistently
• 8cc1669: 8299721: [Vector API] assert in switch-default of LibraryCallKit::arch_supports_vector_rotate is too weak to catch bugs
• ... and 23 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/44be5edf5aa661169c665aa9386e5930a3632524...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.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@naotoj, @jaikiran) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[naotoj]

Seems that you modified a different file?

[justin-curtis-lu]

Seems that you modified a different file?

Yes I did, 🙃. Thanks for catching that, fixed it.

[jaikiran]

I chose valueOf() because I thought it provided more clarity from a documentation standpoint.

I agree. This looks good to me.

[justin-curtis-lu]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@justin-curtis-lu
Your change (at version b87b9e9) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[jaikiran]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 63cf4aa.
Since your change was applied there have been 39 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 5393dc9: Merge
• 1f141bd: 8299705: JCov coverage runs depend on jdk_symbols
• 5eee2a0: 8299740: CaptureCallState is missing @Preview annotation
• 136f5db: 8299528: IR test: TestEor3AArch64.java fails on aarch64
• 284c94e: 8298525: javadoc crashes with "UnsupportedOperationException: Not yet implemented" in SeeTaglet.inherit
• 9c4ed16: 8299561: VaList.empty() doesn't return a list associated with the global scope
• 7310131: 8299337: The java.awt.image.ColorModel#pData field is unused
• d086e82: 8299600: Use Objects.check*() where appropriate in java.io
• 4a95c74: 8299425: "LCMSImageLayout.isIntPacked" flag can be deleted
• d6d6eb4: 8299699: Test runtime/cds/appcds/WrongClasspath.java fails after JDK-8299329
• ... and 29 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/44be5edf5aa661169c665aa9386e5930a3632524...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@jaikiran @justin-curtis-lu Pushed as commit 63cf4aa.

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