I have some abstract project (let's call it The Project) bytecode (of it's every class) inside some kotlin code, and each class bytecode is stored as ByteArray; the task is to tell which specific methods in each class are being modified from build to build of The Project. In other words, there are two ByteArrays of a same class of The Project, but they belong to different versions of it, and I need to compare them accurate. A simple example. Let's assume we have a trivial class:
class Rst {
fun getjson(): String {
abc("""ss""");
return "jsonValid"
}
public fun abc(s: String) {
println(s)
}
}
It's bytecode is stored in oldByteCode. Now some changes happened to the class:
class Rst {
fun getjson(): String {
abc("""ss""");
return "someOtherValue"
}
public fun newMethod(s: String) {
println("it's not abc anymore!")
}
}
It's bytecode is stored in newByteCode. That's the main goal: compare oldByteCode to newByteCode.
Here we have the following changes:
So, a method is changed, if it's signature remains the same. If not, it's already some different method.
Now back to the actual problem. I have to know every method's exact status by it's bytecode. What I have at the moment is the jacoco analyzer, which parses class bytecode to "bundles". In these bundles I have hierarchy of packages, classes, methods, but only with their signatures, so I cant tell if a method's body has any changes. I can only track signature differences. Are there any tools, libs to split class bytecode to it's methods bytecodes? With those I could, for example, calculate hashes and compare them. Maybe asm library has any deal with that? Any ideas are welcome.
TL;DR you approach of just comparing bytecode or even hashes won’t lead to a reliable solution, in fact, there is no solution with a reasonable effort to this kind of problem at all.
I don’t know, how much of it applies to the Kotlin compiler, but as elaborated in Is the creation of Java class files deterministic?, Java compilers are not required to produce identical bytecode even if the same version is used to compile exactly the same source code. While they may have an implementation that tries to be as deterministic as possible, things change when looking at different versions or alternative implementations, as explained in Do different Java Compilers (where the vendor is different) produce different bytecode.
Even when we assume that the Kotlin compiler is outstandingly deterministic, even across versions, it can’t ignore the JVM evolution. E.g. the removal of the jsr/ret instructions could not be ignored by any compiler, even when trying to be conservative. But it’s rather likely that it will incorporate other improvements as well, even when not being forced¹.
So in short, even when the entire source code did not change, it’s not a safe bet to assume that the compiled form has to stay the same. Even with an explicitly deterministic compiler we would have to be prepared for changes when recompiling with newer versions.
Even worse, if one method changes, it may have an impact on the compiled form of others, as instructions refer to items of a constant pool whenever constants or linkage information are needed and these indices may change, depending on how the other methods use the constant pool. There’s also an optimized form for certain instructions when accessing one of the first 255 pool indices, so changes in the numbering may require changing the form of the instruction. This in turn may have an impact on other instructions, e.g. switch instructions have padding bytes, depending on their byte code position.
On the other hand, a simple change of a constant value used in only one method may have no impact on the method’s bytecode at all, if the new constant happened to end up at the same place in the pool than the old constant.
So, to determine whether the code of two methods does actually the same, there is no way around parsing the instructions and understanding their meaning to some degree. Comparing just bytes or hashes won’t work.
¹ to name some non-mandatory changes, the compilation of class literals changed, likewise string concatenation changed from using StringBuffer to use StringBuilder and changed again to use StringConcatFactory, the use of getClass() for intrinsic null checks changed to requireNonNull(…), etc. A compiler for a different language doesn’t have to follow, but no-one wants to be left behind…
There are also bugs to fix, like obsolete instructions, which no compiler would keep just to stay deterministic.