On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:46:27 GMT, Chad Rakoczy <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> [JDK-8299677](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8299677) fixes a bug >> with Formatter.format taking a long time when there is a lot of padding. >> This test runs Formatter.format with very large padding. Test fails before >> [JDK-8299677](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8299677) and passes >> after. >> >> Timeout for the test was set to 10 seconds. Test passes locally with as low >> as 1 (after [JDK-8299677](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8299677)) >> and fails as high as 120 (before >> [JDK-8299677](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8299677)) so it >> should be consistent. > > The fix in JDK-8299677 serves it's intended purpose but the test added with > it does not test that. The original test does not timeout before or after the > fix which is the issue. > > "8326718: Test java/util/Formatter/Padding.java does not timeout on large > inputs after JDK-8299677" > This is the expected case. Should the title be what the issue is or what the > fix is? To me this sounds like the test should be timing out or was timing > out after JDK-8299677 > > Maybe a better title is > "8326718: Test java/util/Formatter/Padding.java should timeout on large > inputs before fix in JDK-8299677" > @chadrako The title of the issue should succinctly describe the problem at > the time it is filed. Then I feel like the current title is correct. The issue at the time of filing is that `Padding.java` does not timeout on large inputs before the fix (which is should but doesn't) that was implemented in JDK-8299677 I'm open to other's opinions on this as well ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18033#issuecomment-1967548391
