[PATCH] 8148100: Convert lambda most specific positive tests to check runtime behavior

[B. Blaser]

Hi,
Does this patch need to be improved?

Thanks,
Bernard

2016-09-21 16:24 GMT+02:00 bsrbnd <bsrbnd at gmail.com>:
> Please find in attachment an all-in-one patch for the 9 tests, as
> discussed previously.
>
> Bernard
>
>
> 2016-09-19 16:01 GMT+02:00 bsrbnd <bsrbnd at gmail.com>:
>> Thanks for your advices.
>>
>> I re-wrote, below, the patch in a more compliant way (I hope).
>> I'll perhaps (probably) also go through the 8 others soon, if I have time...
>>
>> Bernard
>>
>> diff --git a/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>> b/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>> --- a/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>> +++ b/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>> @@ -25,9 +25,12 @@
>>   * @test
>>   * @bug 8034223
>>   * @summary Structural most-specific logic for lambdas, method refs,
>> parens, and conditionals
>> - * @compile MostSpecific10.java
>>   */
>> -class MostSpecific10 {
>> +public class MostSpecific10 {
>> +
>> +    public static void main(String[] args) {
>> +        new MostSpecific10().test(true);
>> +    }
>>
>>      interface GetInt {
>>          int get();
>> @@ -38,7 +41,9 @@
>>      }
>>
>>      void m(GetInt getter) {}
>> -    void m(GetInteger getter) {}
>> +    void m(GetInteger getter) {
>> +        throw new RuntimeException("Less-specific method invocation:
>> " + getter.getClass());
>> +    }
>>
>>      void test(boolean cond) {
>>          m(() -> 23);
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-18 3:11 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gibbons <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>:
>>> Bernard,
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting this patch.
>>>
>>> It's not wrong to say it explicitly, but the addition of the "@run main"
>>> line is unnecessary, since that is the default behavior once you remove the
>>> @compile.
>>>
>>> The replacement for void m(GetInteger getter) should be formatted in a more
>>> standard manner.
>>>
>>> It's more common to put the main method at the head of a test, instead of at
>>> the end.
>>>
>>> We can't check in "partial patches", so either you have to look at the 8
>>> other tests and fix them all together, or we have to accept this one change
>>> as a "complete" fix for 8148100, and open a new, different issue for the 8
>>> other tests. (The OpenJDK rules only permit one changeset per issue per
>>> repo,)
>>>
>>> -- Jon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/17/16 10:16 AM, bsrbnd wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just wrote a partial patch for issue 8148100.
>>>> This is an updated version of
>>>> test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java that verifies if the
>>>> most-specific method is run with respect to JLS 15.12.2 (and also as
>>>> explained in the issue description).
>>>> I've not checked the 8 other tests yet...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bernard
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>>>> b/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>>>> --- a/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>>>> +++ b/test/tools/javac/lambda/MostSpecific10.java
>>>> @@ -26,8 +26,9 @@
>>>>    * @bug 8034223
>>>>    * @summary Structural most-specific logic for lambdas, method refs,
>>>> parens, and conditionals
>>>>    * @compile MostSpecific10.java
>>>> + * @run main MostSpecific10
>>>>    */
>>>> -class MostSpecific10 {
>>>> +public class MostSpecific10 {
>>>>
>>>>       interface GetInt {
>>>>           int get();
>>>> @@ -38,7 +39,7 @@
>>>>       }
>>>>
>>>>       void m(GetInt getter) {}
>>>> -    void m(GetInteger getter) {}
>>>> +    void m(GetInteger getter) {throw new
>>>> RuntimeException("Less-specific method invocation: " +
>>>> getter.getClass());}
>>>>
>>>>       void test(boolean cond) {
>>>>           m(() -> 23);
>>>> @@ -50,5 +51,9 @@
>>>>           m(cond ? (() -> 23) : ("abc"::length) );
>>>>           m(( cond ? () -> 23 : cond ? ("abc"::length) : (() -> 23) ));
>>>>       }
>>>> +
>>>> +    public static void main(String[] args) {
>>>> +        new MostSpecific10().test(true);
>>>> +    }
>>>>
>>>>   }
>>>
>>>