[JENKINS-73768] Handle base=derived case in Util#isOverridden

[daniel-beck]

See JENKINS-73768.

It looks like #4833 does not properly consider the case where base == derived. Somehow the existing test coverage is insufficient, did not dig further into this yet.

I encountered this when looking at the system log and being surprised about exception output using "Caused by" rather than "Causes" when what was thrown was a raw Throwable in test code -- hence the choice of types in the test.

An alternative solution could be to change the last line to use equals instead of !=, but that seems more likely to have unintended consequences.

CC @Zastai in case you're still around/interested.

Testing done

None.

Proposed changelog entries

• human-readable text

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[Zastai]

LGTM.

I suppose the second test assert is not 100% future proof (there's no guarantee that Exception will never override printStackTrace()). The test class could declare a nested private static class that extends Throwable for that purpose; not sure it's necessarily worth the effort though.

[zbynek]

Looks like the method was copied to https://github.com/jenkinsci/stapler/blob/c4f6b569053629f8ede0e176bce6538a2450585f/core/src/main/java/org/kohsuke/stapler/ReflectionUtils.java#L102 and both methods are called by core. Would it make sense to also apply the fix there? Or maybe deduplicate the methods?

[daniel-beck]

@zbynek

Would it make sense to also apply the fix there?

Probably. Note that the problem only matters if you have a caller passing types that are not hardcoded, not the case in Stapler AFAICT.

[timja]

/label ready-for-merge

---

This PR is now ready for merge, after ~24 hours, we will merge it if there's no negative feedback.

Thanks!