Open Janmm14 opened 2 years ago
The JavaObject could be without a "real" value (field value=null), as Object.<init> is calling initialize with null as value.
Object.<init>
null
Maybe only the JVMMethodProvider does not handle this case as expected - didn't check everywhere.
JVMMethodProvider
A way to represent virtual objects (instances of classes of the program being deobfuscated) is required.
It has to make sure
String.valueOf
I have no intention of creating a PR for this. This is not a problem for the already supported obfuscator versions.
The JavaObject could be without a "real" value (field value=null), as
Object.<init>
is calling initialize withnull
as value.Maybe only the
JVMMethodProvider
does not handle this case as expected - didn't check everywhere.A way to represent virtual objects (instances of classes of the program being deobfuscated) is required.
It has to make sure
String.valueOf
(and eventual similar methods implemented inJVMMethodProvider
) behave as expected by the program to deobfuscateJVMMethodProvider
is handled as expected (equals, hashCode)String.valueOf
on a collection with a representation of a virtual object needs to be handled as expectedI have no intention of creating a PR for this. This is not a problem for the already supported obfuscator versions.