EnvironmentVariable - An illegal reflective access operation

On

openjdk version "11.0.9" 2020-10-20
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 11.0.9+11)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 11.0.9+11, mixed mode)

and

openjdk version "15.0.1" 2020-10-20
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 15.0.1+9)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 15.0.1+9, mixed mode, sharing)

we have

[ERROR] WARNING: An illegal reflective access operation has occurred
[ERROR] WARNING: Illegal reflective access by org.junitpioneer.jupiter.EnvironmentVariableUtils (file:/..../.m2/repository/org/junit-pioneer/junit-pioneer/1.1.0/junit-pioneer-1.1.0.jar) to field java.util.Collections$UnmodifiableMap.m
[ERROR] WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of org.junitpioneer.jupiter.EnvironmentVariableUtils
[ERROR] WARNING: Use --illegal-access=warn to enable warnings of further illegal reflective access operations
[ERROR] WARNING: All illegal access operations will be denied in a future release

It is warning message - tests pass as expected

[nipafx]

Hi @slawekjaranowski,

I assume you’re using Pioneer’s @ClearEnvironmentVariable or @SetEnvironmentVariable, correct? If so, please see the warning in the documentation:

Java considers environment variables to be immutable, so this extension uses reflection to change them. This requires that the SecurityManager allows modifications and can potentially break on different operating systems and Java versions. Be aware that this is a fragile solution and consider finding a better one for your specific situation. If you’re running on Java 9 or later, you may have to add --add-opens=java.base/java.util=ALL-UNNAMED to your test execution to prevent warnings or even errors.

The warning you describe is the result of the reflective operation that changes environment variables. As far as I know, there’s no way for Pioneer to suppress these warnings and even if there were, I would oppose implementing it because this is a fragile operation that deserves a warning 😉 , so I’m inclined to close with issue as works as intended.

If you’re not using these annotations or otherwise disagree, let me know and we can follow up.

[nipafx]

I want to reopen the issue to discuss whether we’re already doing our best to inform users of what’s going on. At the moment, there’s the paragraph in the documentation that I quoted above and we publish a report entry saying “This extension uses reflection to mutate JDK-internal state, which is fragile. Check the Javadoc or documentation for more details.”

Additionally, we could:

• print that warning to System.out or System.err
• include the specific warning in the documentation, so search engines lead users to it

Anything else?