JDK-8160675 : Issue lint warning for non-serializable non-transient instance fields in serializable type
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javac
  • Affected Version: 9
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Submitted: 2016-06-30
  • Updated: 2022-02-08
  • Resolved: 2021-10-21
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
JDK 18
18 b21Fixed
Related Reports
CSR :  
JDK-8274336 - Issue lint warning for non-serializable non-transient instance fields in serializable type
Relates :  
JDK-8231202 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in serializable classes
Relates :  
JDK-8231641 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in JDK libraries (umbrella)
Relates :  
JDK-8231368 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.security.jgss
Relates :  
JDK-8231414 - Mark various instance fields of javac internal types as transient
Relates :  
JDK-8231442 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable instance fields in java.sql.* modules
Relates :  
JDK-8231545 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable instance fields in jdk.jshell module
Relates :  
JDK-8231546 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable instance fields in java.prefs module
Relates :  
JDK-8275667 - Refactor serial lint checks to be tree-based
Relates :  
JDK-8202056 - Expand serial warning to check for bad overloads of serial-related methods and ineffectual fields
Relates :  
JDK-8231913 - Discuss serializability of collections
Relates :  
JDK-8231437 - Review serial fields of java.awt.Container
Relates :  
JDK-8002086 - javac should warn if serialVersionUID is present in an enum or anon subclass of an enum
Relates :  
JDK-8274391 - Suppress more warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.util.concurrent
Relates :  
JDK-4397681 - MediaTracker serialization spec refer package-protected field MediaEntry
Relates :  
JDK-6226715 - (ann) java.lang.annotation.AnnotationTypeMismatchException could not be serialized
Relates :  
JDK-8231314 - java.time serialization warning cleanup
Relates :  
JDK-7019074 - -Xlint serial flag could perform correctness checks on readObject/writeObject
Relates :  
JDK-8231262 - Suppress warnings on non-serializable instance fields in security libs serializable classes
Description
As an enhancement to javac's lint warnings about serialization (JDK-4767441), it would be informative if javac warned about the presence non-serializable non-transient instance fields in a serializable class. The types can lead to interesting instances of a type not being serializable in practice (JDK-6226715).

Such a warning should be omitted if a class defines serialPersistentFields (see https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/platform/serialization/spec/serial-arch.html#a5251).
Comments
Fold release note information for this issue into the release note for JDK-8202056.
08-02-2022
Changeset: 6a466fe7 Author: Joe Darcy <darcy@openjdk.org> Date: 2021-10-21 21:11:01 +0000 URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/6a466fe7ae281967d1cc4c8029b306f2d66567c9
21-10-2021
This is a fine goal, but it might be difficult in practice. Consider: class Foo<T> implements Serializable { List<T> someField = ... ; } The List interface isn't serializable, but convention is that most concrete List implementations in the JDK are serializable. And then of course there is the issue of whether the contents of the list can statically be determined to be serializable. You can't write class Foo<T extends Serializable> ... for the same reason, which is that T might not statically be a subtype of Serializable, while in practice instances of it might be. But maybe somebody else can see a way to do this that I can't.
19-04-2018