On 10/17/18, 1:08 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Joe,
A few comments about the test.
45: the summary should mention it is testing the Files.mismatch method
Files.mismatch it is.
I think the @bug line should be empty, this is not a test for a bug.
Consider along with Stuart's comment, that it points to the bug under which the changeset was pushed, would it be ok to keep it?
I don't think you need or use the testng group= functionality; if you don't have a need for it omit it.
Removed.
On the test files, I think I would have used testMismatch DataProvider to create the files. It would avoid having to maintain parallel lists of matching parameters. The @beforeSetup might support the dataProvider directly, but might have to iterate over the array itself, creating the files if they do not exist. And keeping the mapping from name to path in a Map instead of statics.
Removed the class fields. They were converted from an array that was used for @AfterClass cleanup, now that I've added a temporary test directory, cleanup won't need them anymore. Not much sharing among the DataProviders either. So now they are created inside each DataProvider as needed.
The code should use Assert.assertEquals(actual, expected, msg) so that if there is a difference it is printed. (instead of assertTrue ( n==m)...)
Done.
The file sizes all seem to be multiples of 1024 or the buffer size. There might be a good case for using a more varied sizes.
Yeah, added a couple of more test groups with arbitrary sizes.
340: testMismatchNotExists: can the expected exception be more specific: FileNotFoundException instead of IOException.
It appears isSameFile actually throws java.nio.file.NoSuchFileException rather than FileNotFoundException. Since isSameFile, as well as this spec, defined IOException, the expected exception spec-wise and impl-wise (it uses isSameFile) is indeed IOException.
370: This condition for zero made me wonder if there was a test case for files that differ at 0.
Added tests for a mismatch at 0, and also at size - 1 (at the end).
397: fillArray could probably make good use of System.arraycopy().
Sure. Current version: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v06/ Previous: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v05/ Thanks, Joe
Regards, Roger
On 10/17/2018 03:33 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
On 10/17/18, 7:16 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Joe,
Looks good, straightforward and easy to understand.
Glad to hear that, while it's been back and forth a couple of times, it seems "straightforward and easy" won :-)
The spec text in the CSR need to be updated to match. (At least the paragraph about reflexive and atomic).
CSR: update the text and attachment https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202302
Also added coverage to spec case 5 - reflexive (no new test cases), spec case 6 - symmetric with tests selected from case 3. webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v05/
Thanks, Joe
Thanks, Roger
On 10/16/2018 02:10 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi Daniel,
@linkplain it is! Thanks! And yes, int totalRead was fixed in the previous webrevs.
Current version: specdiff: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/specdiff_v04/java/nio/file/F...
webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v04/
Previous version: specdiff: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/specdiff_v03/java/nio/file/F...
webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v03/
Best regards, Joe
On 10/16/18, 2:11 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Joe,
There are a few places where {@linkplain } should be used instead of {@link }. For instance:
1545 * <li> The two paths locate the {@link #isSameFile(Path, Path) same file},
This should be {@linkplain } - for the record {@link } will format the text as code, {@linkplain } will format it as regular text. Since the text of the link is "same file" then it should be formatted as regular text - not as code.
The link on the next line should probably be {@linkplain } as well.
Otherwise looks good to me (except for the declaration of int totalRead that should be long but Alan already mentioned it).
best regards,
-- daniel
On 12/10/2018 20:16, Joe Wang wrote:
Here's an update based on all of the great reviews and comments (thanks all!):
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202285 CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202302
Current version: specdiff: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/specdiff_02/java/nio/file/Fi...
webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v02/
Previous version: specdiff: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/specdiff_v01/java/nio/file/F...
webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8202285/webrev_v01/
It's been a while, so here's a summary of what's changed:
Spec: Alan's patch to fix inconsistencies in wording/terminology Impl: s/mismatchByAttrs and etc/isSameFile; Stick with the simple implementation (InputStream/Buffer) for now. Further improvement may be done if there's a need; The impl is smaller than the previous version, merged the code into Files, removed FilesMismatch.java;
Test: more readable variables instead of the array of test files more comments on the testcases improved the private methods used for generating the test files
Thanks, Joe
-- Thanks, Roger