On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:45:02 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I have just added testing `transferTo` with non-empty buffer and mark set as >> part of the already existing *randomized* test steps. I think that should be >> sufficient to detect problems if they really would exist, so there should >> not be a real need to run *explicit and separate* test cases for the >> combinations of "buffered with mark" / "buffered without mark" / "unbuffered >> with mark" / "unbuffered without mark" as that would not provide any >> improved coverage or detection rate IMHO. > > My intention of suggesting a test where it uses something like a > FileInputStream was to trigger the code path that would invoke the > `FileChannel#transferTo` when such an `InputStream` was wrapped in a > `BufferedInputStream`. The `FileChannel#transferTo` in its javadoc states > that it can throw exceptions that aren't `IOException` (for example > `NonReadableChannelException` which is a `IllegalStateException`). So it was > just an attempt to see if such a testing uncovers something that might make > us consider catching those exceptions in this new implementation of > `BufferedInputStream#transferTo` and rethrow it as an `IOException`. The original implementation of `InputStream::transferTo()` doesn't do that either, so if you think `transferTo()` must do that, that has to go into the *original* implementation, not only into the one of BIS in particular. To keep things simple, I'd propose that we do not mix ideas and you file a new issue / PR for that. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/6935
