Do not change package when non-recursive

[timtebeek]

Add unit test as reported via Slack by @BhavanaPidapa; update precondition to evaluate recursive boolean for package declaration too.

[BhavanaPidapa]

Hey Tim,

Below is the test case where changes to com.sun.net.ssl.internal.* are not expected. Please refer to the attached screenshot.

@Test
void excludePackageTest() {
    //language=java
    rewriteRun(
      spec -> spec.recipe(new ChangePackage(
        "com.sun.net.ssl",
        "javax.net.ssl",
        false
      )),
      java(
        """
          package com.test;
          import com.sun.net.ssl.internal.*;
          import com.sun.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier;
          class Test {
           public com.sun.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier hv;
              void exampleMethod() {
              }
          }
          """,
        """
          package com.test;
          import com.sun.net.ssl.internal.*;
          import javax.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier;
          class Test {
           public javax.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier hv;
              void exampleMethod() {
              }
          }
          """
      )
    );
}

[github-actions]

Some suggestions could not be made:

• rewrite-java/src/test/java/org/openrewrite/java/internal/parser/TypeTableTest.java
  • lines 51-51
  • lines 67-68
  • lines 92-93
  • lines 140-140

[timtebeek]

Capturing the nonRecursiveShouldIgnoreNestedWildcardImport test failure output

diff --git a/Foo.java b/Foo.java	
index 562edaa..d960c46 100644	
--- a/Foo.java	
+++ b/Foo.java	
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ 	
-import com.sun.net.ssl.internal.*;	
+import javax.net.ssl.internal.*;	
 import javax.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier;	
 class Foo {	
     javax.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier hv;	

[timtebeek]

This is an interesting case: we first and separate evaluate a precondition to determine if we need further changes; that precondition resolves to true due to the presence of com.sun.net.ssl.HostnameVerifier; then we unconditionally change any package references in the actual visitor, whereas we should probably still take into account there whether we should do so recursively.

[knutwannheden]

Maybe fixed by #4942? Not sure, as the work I did was for YAML.