Please anyone could confirm the actual results below (from my previous email) are intended or not? :(
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Hoat Le <hoatle...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I have some concerns regarding of *Validate* class with the case of null > pointer exceptions. I see that there are some misleading messages, please > see below: > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated array is > empty > */ > Validate.notEmpty((Object[]) null); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: MSG > */ > Validate.notEmpty((Object[]) null, "MSG"); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated collection > is empty > */ > Validate.notEmpty((Collection<?>) null); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: MSG > */ > Validate.notEmpty((Collection<?>) null, "MSG"); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated map is > empty > */ > Validate.notEmpty((Map<?, ?>) null); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: MSG > */ > Validate.notEmpty((Map<?, ?>) null, "MSG"); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated character > sequence is empty > */ > Validate.notEmpty((CharSequence) null); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: MSG > */ > Validate.notEmpty((CharSequence) null, "MSG"); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated character > sequence is blank > */ > Validate.notBlank((CharSequence) null); > > /** > * Expected: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is > null > * Actual: java.lang.NullPointerException: MSG > */ > Validate.notBlank((CharSequence) null, "MSG"); > > /** > * Ok: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is null > */ > Validate.noNullElements((Object[]) null); > > /** > * Ok: java.lang.NullPointerException: The validated object is null > */ > Validate.noNullElements((Object[]) null, "MSG"); > > Validate.validIndex(...); //=> ok will null > > If you agree on the expected NullPointerException, I'll give the patch for > this issue for fixing it; there are duplicated code in *Validate* class, and > some unit test parts for *ValidateTest* are not relevant, too. Thanks. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jörg Schaible < > joerg.schai...@scalaris.com> wrote: > >> Hi Phil, >> >> Phil Steitz wrote: >> >> > On 4/10/11 11:44 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >> Hi Hen, >> >> >> >> Henri Yandell wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >>>> * One last nit - why did we decide to dump the Ant build. Version >> >>>> 2.6 seems to have a working Ant build. Why wouldn't the same build >> >>>> work for 3.0. If you are OK with this, I will try to get the Ant >> >>>> build restored. >> >>> IIRC, because no one was maintaining it. I've dumped other Ant builds >> >>> in other components too over the last 4 years (along with maven1 >> >>> builds). I'm generally -1 to the "there are many ways to build it" >> >>> approach. It takes the pain of dealing with one build system and >> >>> increases it to 3x the pain. [manage build1, manage build2 and then >> >>> ensure build1 and build2 stay in sync]. >> >> Same here. Why deliver two build scripts .. is anybody actually keen on >> >> ensuring that both builds generate the same stuff? What do we vote on >> >> then? >> >> >> > We vote on what goes to dist/ >> > >> > The point of keeping a working Ant build is for users who want to >> > build from source and are not Maven users (many, many users in the >> > real world). >> >> My point is that there are quite some distros (Debian, Gentoo, ...) and >> vendors (jBoss) that will always build on their own. Can we ensure that >> the >> Ant build will always create the same artifacts? >> >> - Jörg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Hoat Le [hoatle.net] > -- Hoat Le [hoatle.net]
