On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:06:58 GMT, Justin Lu <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> IIUC, this should have happened before, as a currency update like "XXA" -> >> "XXB" on a future date is pretty usual. I think this issue was simply not >> discovered by any users till now. > > I think this wasn't discovered/hasn't failed the test before because the > amendments with future date changes most of the time were implemented after > the date already occurred, so there was no cut-over, simply a new currency > directly replacing the old (For example, ISO 171 SLE replacing SLL was > direct). In the case where the cut-over hadn't happened, like 174 where EUR > replaced HRK, EUR is already expected to be returned by > `Currency.getAvailableCurrencies()` so there was no issue. > > I claimed that this particular amendment exposed it, because if this case had > happened before with an amendment update, it would have caused > validateISO4217.java to fail (as it does with this case). Since that test > checks if the set returned by the method does not contain any future > currencies. Yes, it is rare but happened before. The test had failed with the cut-over date in the past. Possibly at that time, getAvailableCurrencies test may not have been there so it wasn't obvious when the modification was made. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17023#discussion_r1423251685
