6516099: InputStream.skipFully(int k) to skip exactly k bytes

[Daniel Fuchs]

Hi Brian,

Looks good to me, though I don't understand the change
at line 214:

The comment says:

152         // skip(n) returns negative value: IOE

but if you pass -1 - you're no longer calling skip(n)?

best regards,

-- daniel

On 30/11/2018 19:55, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Loathe though I am to resurrect this thread, one problem arose after testing with assertions enabled which I had neglected previously to do. A few small changes to test/jdk/java/io/InputStream/Skip.java are required. A delta versus webrev.08 (link at bottom) is at
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/6516099/webrev.08-delta/
> 
> The changes are as follows (line numbers in the new version):
> 
> 1. L154
> 
>           in.setState(-1, 100);
> -        dotestExact(in, pos, streamLength, n, true, false);
> +        dotestExact(in, pos, streamLength, -1, true, false);
> 
> Pass “-1” as the number to skip instead of “n.”
> 
> 2. L159
> 
>           in.setState(n + 1, 100);
>           dotestExact(in, pos, streamLength, n, true, false);
> +        pos += n + 1;
> 
> Update the test-tracked position according to the number actually skipped, which is “n + 1” although only “n” bytes were requested. This sub-test causes the internal call to “skip()” to be “skip(n+1)” which will return “n+1” which intentionally provokes an IOException and leaves the stream in an inconsistent state as documented. The call to “skip(n+1)” does however really skip “n+1” bytes so the test-tracked position must be updated accordingly.
> 
> 3. L214
> 
> -    public long position() { return readctr == endoffile ? EOF : readctr; }
> +    public long position() { return readctr; }
> 
> The position should be returning the actual offset which for EOF is the length of the stream, not -1.
> 
> With the foregoing changes the test passes.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian
> 
>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fuchs at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Looks good to me Brian.
>>
>> I never knew whether positive meant >= 0 or > 0 anyway ;-)
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>> On 28/11/2018 17:38, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/6516099/webrev.08/
>