On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 15:00:11 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbena...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this patch that extends the javadoc of
>> `UnsupportedOperationException` no-arg constructor, to clear up that the
>> detail message is null.
>
> Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Feedback from Alexey.
Overall, it looks good to me. What's left is agreeing on how the updated text
is formatted in the source code.
I'm unsure if a CSR is required. The specification isn't updated substantially
for `RuntimeException`; the changes for `UnsupportedOperationException` are
quite substantial, so submitting CSR would be a good idea to document the
changes made.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/UnsupportedOperationException.java line
60:
> 58: /**
> 59: * Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the
> specified detail message and
> 60: * cause.
Suggestion:
* Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the specified
* detail message and cause.
I'm for wrapping the line after the word “specified” to fit into 80 columns.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/UnsupportedOperationException.java line
81:
> 79: * Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the
> specified cause and a detail
> 80: * message of {@code (cause==null ? null : cause.toString())} (which
> 81: * typically contains the class and detail message of {@code cause}).
This one is trickier. Wrapping the line will cause a ripple effect on the
following lines, which I'd like to avoid or to minimise at least.
Suggestion:
* Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the specified
* cause and a detail message of
* {@code (cause==null ? null : cause.toString())} (which
* typically contains the class and detail message of {@code cause}).
-------------
Changes requested by aivanov (Reviewer).
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26533#pullrequestreview-3097822567
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26533#discussion_r2260779017
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26533#discussion_r2260785918
