On Wed, 21 May 2025 09:09:15 GMT, Tagir F. Valeev <tval...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Implementation of Comparator.min and Comparator.max methods. Preliminary >> discussion is in this thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2025-May/145638.html >> The specification is mostly composed of Math.min/max and Collections.min/max >> specifications. >> >> The methods are quite trivial, so I don't think we need more extensive >> testing (e.g., using different comparators). But if you have ideas of new >> useful tests, I'll gladly add them. >> >> I'm not sure whether we should specify exactly the behavior in case if the >> comparator returns 0. I feel that it could be a useful invariant that >> `Comparator.min(a, b)` and `Comparator.max(a, b)` always return different >> argument, partitioning the set of {a, b} objects (even if they are equal). >> But I'm open to suggestions here. > > Tagir F. Valeev has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Return first argument in case of tie (to be consistent with > BinaryOperator); junit tests A couple of nits. src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Comparator.java line 200: > 198: * @return the larger of {@code a} and {@code b} according to this > comparator. > 199: * @throws ClassCastException if the collection contains elements > that are > 200: * not <i>mutually comparable</i> (for example, strings and `<em>` is more intent revealing. Suggestion: * not <em>mutually comparable</em> (for example, strings and test/jdk/java/util/Comparator/MinMaxTest.java line 39: > 37: public class MinMaxTest { > 38: @Test > 39: public void testMin() { According to [this](https://junit.org/junit5/docs/snapshot/user-guide/#writing-tests-classes-and-methods), test methods do not need to be `public` (but cannot be `private`). Suggestion: void testMin() { ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25297#pullrequestreview-2857412002 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25297#discussion_r2100089152 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25297#discussion_r2100089409
