RFR: 8266571: Sequenced Collections

[Stuart Marks]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:15:48 GMT, Srikanth Adayapalam <sadayapalam at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> PR for Sequenced Collections implementation.
>
> Please include the following fix for the langtools test "failures": 
> 
> 
> diff --git a/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java b/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> index e8110396dac..8d53c3b9d6f 100644
> --- a/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> +++ b/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ public class TestJavacTaskScanner extends ToolTester {
>          System.out.println("#allMembers: " + numAllMembers);
>  
>          check(numTokens, "#Tokens", 1054);
> - check(numParseTypeElements, "#parseTypeElements", 158);
> + check(numParseTypeElements, "#parseTypeElements", 170);
>          check(numAllMembers, "#allMembers", 52);
>      }
>  diff --git a/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java b/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> index b7e9121a956..c47b7a7de92 100644
> --- a/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> +++ b/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ public class BoundsTest {
>      };
>      private static final String[] Single_supers = {
>          "java.lang.Object",
> - "java.util.Collection"
> + "java.util.SequencedCollection"
>      };

@sadayapalam

> Please include the following fix for the langtools test "failures":

OK, applying these patches lets the tests pass. I can include them in this PR.

The patch in TestJavacTaskScanner.java adjusts the expected number of elements from 158 to 170, but I note that the error message in the test failure is

    java.lang.Error: #parseTypeElements higher than expected; expected 158; found: 180

The test still passes with the expected value of 170, as the criterion seems to be that the actual number be within 10% of the expected number. Since the actual number is 180, though, would it be better to use 180?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#issuecomment-1307795998