On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:52:39 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue > noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895? > > As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is > initialized to have a minimum and maximum values of `Long.MIN_VALUE` and > `LONG.MAX_VALUE` respectively. However, `java.time.Instant` only supports > `-31557014167219200L` and `31556889864403199L` as minimum and maximum values > for the epoch second. > > The commit in this PR updates the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS`'s value range > to match the supported min and max values of `Instant` (as suggested by > Stephen in that JBS issue). This commit also introduces a test to verify this > change. This new test method as well as existing tests in tier1, tier2 and > tier3 continue to pass with this change. src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/temporal/ChronoField.java line 590: > 588: * This is necessary to ensure interoperation between calendars. > 589: */ > 590: // ValueRange matches the min and max epoch second supported by > java.time.Instant Would we want to include this in the javadoc? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18674#discussion_r1556219119
