[ABTEST-555] cglib-nodep-3.3.30 Java 17 Compatibilty issue Created: 11/Dec/23 Updated: 19/Jan/24 Resolved: 14/Dec/23 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | A/B Testing |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Neutral |
| Reporter: | Rodolfo Perez III | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Not an issue | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Template: | |||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
||||||||
| Bug DoR: |
[ ]*
Steps to reproduce, expected, and actual results filled
[ ]*
Affected version filled
|
||||||||
| Date of First Response: | |||||||||
| Description |
Steps to reproduce
Logs Exception net.sf.cglib.core.CodeGenerationException: java.lang.reflect.InaccessibleObjectException-->Unable to make protected final java.lang.Class java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(java.lang.String,byte[],int,int,java.security.ProtectionDomain) throws java.lang.ClassFormatError accessible: module java.base does not "opens java.lang" to unnamed module @6487785 [in thread "http-nio-8080-exec-9"] Screenshot
GIF
Expected results Open any apps without any issues and log errors. Actual resultsJCR tools can't be opened. An error is being return by Magnolia. WorkaroundAdd JVM options as suggested in https://github.com/cglib/cglib/issues/191 Development notes |
| Comments |
| Comment by Jonathan Ayala [ 14/Dec/23 ] |
|
Hi rdlfperez, In order to get support you should raise a request in the corresponding channel. Find here the instructions to do it. Regarding the reported issue, it is not reproducible in our local environments, which makes me think this is not a bug but a misconfiguration on your side. If you want us to analyse the issue, please open a support ticket as explained above and we'll be happy to help. Regards, |
| Comment by Rodolfo Perez III [ 19/Jan/24 ] |
|
Hi Jonathan, thanks for checking. We are now using Java 17 in our PROD with the JVM options I mentioned. I'm just curious about what your JVM options look like locally. |