RFR: 8212895: ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS's range doesn't match the range of Instant [v2]

[Naoto Sato]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:37:29 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>> 
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is initialized to have a minimum and maximum values of `Long.MIN_VALUE` and `LONG.MAX_VALUE` respectively. However, `java.time.Instant` only supports `-31557014167219200L` and `31556889864403199L` as minimum and maximum values for the epoch second.
>> 
>> The commit in this PR updates the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS`'s value range to match the supported min and max values of `Instant` (as suggested by Stephen in that JBS issue). This commit also introduces a test to verify this change. This new test method as well as existing tests in tier1, tier2 and tier3 continue to pass with this change.
>
> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Naoto's suggestion - use Instant.MIN and Instant.MAX instead of hardcoded values

Thanks, Jai. The code change looks good. (Left a minor nit)

src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/temporal/ChronoField.java line 590:

> 588:      * This is necessary to ensure interoperation between calendars.
> 589:      * <p>
> 590:      * Range of {@code InstantSeconds} is between {@link Instant#MIN} and {@link Instant#MAX}

Nit: `InstantSeconds` -> `INSTANT_SECONDS`

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18674#pullrequestreview-1989561065
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18674#discussion_r1557961266