From my perspective, it should be fairly easy to make it clear...
1. File is opened, but not processed. Current line number = 1, total
lines processed = 0, records processed = 0.
2. First line is processed. Current line number = 2, lines processed =
1, records processed = 0.
3. Second line is processed, reached end of record. Current line number
= 3, lines processed = 2, records processed = 1.
-Adrian
On 5/7/2013 12:08 PM, sebb wrote:
On 7 May 2013 11:36, Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
Maybe the method could be named better, something like
ExtendedBufferedReader.getCurrentLineNumber() - which would be different
than total lines processed.
Indeed, but at present there is no method which accurately reports the
current line number for all situations.
The method getLineNumber() currently reports the EOL count, which is
the number of (complete) lines seen.
The name is ambiguous.
I don't think it is worth renaming until the design is sorted out.
-Adrian
On 5/7/2013 11:05 AM, sebb wrote:
I've been looking at it further and there is an issue with 1-based
counting.
The line number currently counts the number of EOLs seen.
This means it is currently accurate for total line count (which a
1-based system would not be) and is accurate for any completed
records.
It's only during processing of a line (before EOL is reached) that the
count is off by one.
I noticed that when I tested an invalid parse.
One way round this would be to adjust the count when generating the
IOException. e.g. if there are spurious characters before EOL it's
obvious that one needs to add 1.
I suspect it might be a bit tricky / more expensive to increment the
line number only at the start of a line.
Needs further work, which is why I started by just correcting the
Javadoc to agree with the code.
On 7 May 2013 08:00, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote:
2013/5/6 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
The line number returned by
ExtendedBufferedReader.getLineNumber()
currently starts at zero, so an error in the first line in the file is
reported as being in line 0.
There does not seem to be any good reason for using a zero-based line
number, so I would like to change it to 1-based. Some tests will need
to be fixed.
WDYT?
+1
Gary
Makes sense to me too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<
http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
