Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Classes are not decompiled #741

Closed
evilsh3ll opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

Classes are not decompiled #741

evilsh3ll opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
2.X Missing details Needs more info to understand the problem

Comments

@evilsh3ll
Copy link

evilsh3ll commented Nov 15, 2023

Describe the bug

Classes are not decompiled when using jdk11-openjdk (11.0.21.u9-3) in archlinux. I installed have also jdk17-openjdk (17.0.9.u8-2) installed. Can I force the jdk17 or jdk21 startup? Maybe the problem is a jdk version.
image

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Install jdk11-openjdk in archlinux
  2. Open a JAR file in Recaf
  3. Classes are not decompiled

Exception

➜  ~ recaf --input='/home/main/Scrivania/test-1.11.0.jar'
Nov 15, 2023 2:38:50 PM com.sun.javafx.application.PlatformImpl startup
WARNING: Unsupported JavaFX configuration: classes were loaded from 'unnamed module @e580929'

Screenshots

image

@Col-E
Copy link
Owner

Col-E commented Nov 15, 2023

  1. I cannot do anything without the sample causing the problem, based on other similar reports in the past I assume this is a specific issue to the sample and not JAR files at large.
  2. Some samples target ZIP parsing logic to prevent recognition of classess. We've done a lot of extra work in 3/4x to address this, and not much has been ported back to 2x.

@Col-E Col-E added 2.X Missing details Needs more info to understand the problem labels Nov 15, 2023
@evilsh3ll
Copy link
Author

the sample is cryptomator 1.11 binary

@Amejonah1200
Copy link

My instinct (without looking into the jar) tells me it is because of old ASM which is not capable of newer bytecode versions. Can you please try 3x instead?

@evilsh3ll
Copy link
Author

3x is working correctly, is there any chance to get the same behavior also in the standard build?

@Amejonah1200
Copy link

Amejonah1200 commented Nov 15, 2023

Most likely the dependencies needs to be updated. Can you tell us what features are missing in 3x?

@Col-E
Copy link
Owner

Col-E commented May 19, 2024

Closing as 4.X is the only branch we're working on going forward. This is addressed in 3.X and 4.X branches.

@Col-E Col-E closed this as completed May 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
2.X Missing details Needs more info to understand the problem
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants