On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 07:21:48 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Markus KARG has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Improved wording: 'If the sequence changes while the reader is open, e.g. >> the length changes, the behavior is undefined.' > > test/jdk/java/io/Reader/Of.java line 40: > >> 38: * @bug 8341566 >> 39: * @run testng Of >> 40: * @summary Check for expected behavior of Reader.of(). > > Nit - the jtreg documentation recommends the following order of these tags > https://openjdk.org/jtreg/tag-spec.html#ORDER. For newly introduced tests, > like this one, it will be good to follow that recommendation. done > test/jdk/java/io/Reader/Of.java line 42: > >> 40: * @summary Check for expected behavior of Reader.of(). >> 41: */ >> 42: public class Of { > > Would it be possible to include a test which creates and operates on a > `Reader` which is backed by a `CharSequence` of zero length. Similarly, a > test which creates and operates on a `Reader` which is backed by a > `CharSequence` of `Integer.MAX_VALUE` length? I think that should give us > good coverage for the implementation of the returned `Reader` for these > corner cases. Zero-case is partically covered by the existing test code. Your request looks like a real lot of work, as it implies a complete rewrite of the overall structure of the test - and frankly spoken, my budget for this issue is near to spent already. Does that *really* provide a justifying benefit, given the fact that these are literally edge cases (and given the fact, that the code is a 1:1 copy of `StringReader`, which we all used since decades, including those edge cases)? If you think it is really necessary, can you please post the modified version of `Of.java` here? I will then post it into the PR. Thanks. > test/jdk/java/io/Reader/Of.java line 168: > >> 166: } >> 167: >> 168: @Test(dataProvider = "readers", expectedExceptions = >> IOException.class) > > Instead of `expectedExceptions` at the method level, I think it would be > better to use something like: > > > org.testng.Assert.assertThrows(IOException.class, > () -> {reader.read();}); > > That way it's clear which operation within the test method is expected to > throw this exception and it also prevents unexpected `IOException` (for > example, from reader.close()) from going unnoticed. done. Does it makes sense to keep the close tests as separate methods then? IMHO their sole existence was due to using `expectedExceptions` instead of `assertThrows`. So now that we *have* `assertThrows`, shall we move the test code itself at the end of the non-close test methods simply? 🤔 > test/jdk/java/io/Reader/Of.java line 174: > >> 172: } >> 173: >> 174: @Test(dataProvider = "readers", expectedExceptions = >> IOException.class) > > Same comment as above, here and the other test methods, about using > assertThrows instead of expectedExceptions at the method level. done ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#discussion_r1793220813 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#discussion_r1793313049 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#discussion_r1793236618 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#discussion_r1793236979
