RFR 8080557: JShell tool: Contains REPL class prefix in the documentation for the user defined method or class

[ShinyaYoshida]

I've pushed.

Regards,
shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)

2015-05-27 9:12 GMT+09:00 ShinyaYoshida <bitterfoxc at gmail.com>:

> Thank you!!
>
> I'll push!
>
> Regards,
> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>
> 2015-05-26 22:02 GMT+09:00 Andrei Eremeev <andrei.eremeev at oracle.com>:
>
>> Yes, sorry for the late answer.
>> Andrei
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: bitterfoxc at gmail.com
>> To: andrei.eremeev at oracle.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:41:37 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
>> Subject: Re: RFR 8080557: JShell tool: Contains REPL class prefix in the
>> documentation for the user defined method or class
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> Can I push, Andrei?
>>
>> Regards,
>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-05-23 2:47 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com>:
>>
>>> On 22.5.2015 19:44, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for your review, Jan.
>>>> Ok, then I'll keep them.
>>>>
>>>> Can I push, Jan and Andrei?
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8080557/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-05-23 2:19 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:jan.lahoda at oracle.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Hi Shinya,
>>>>
>>>>     Seems fine to me. Regarding the tests, I guess we could keep the
>>>>     Java API tests for now (as we already have them), but if you'd like
>>>>     to replace them with the custom versions, I don't object.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>         Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 21.5.2015 14:51, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi Jan and Andrei,
>>>>         Could you review my patch for the issue which is reported by
>>>> Andrei?
>>>>
>>>>         webrev:
>>>>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8080557/webrev.00/
>>>>         bugs:
>>>>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080557
>>>>
>>>>         I've changed the test case of the documentation for the user
>>>> defined
>>>>         constructor, it looks a test case bug:
>>>>         - assertEval1("class A<T> { A(T a) {} A(T a) {}}");
>>>>         - assertDocumentation("new A(|", "A(T a)", "A(int arg0)");
>>>>         + assertEval1("class A<T> { A(T a) {} A(int a) {}}");
>>>>         + assertDocumentation("new A(|", "A(T arg0)", "A(int arg0)");
>>>>         Andrei, this is ok?
>>>>
>>>>         And now, we can replace using Java API with using the user
>>>> defined
>>>>         method or constructor in some tests.
>>>>         I add the test cases using user defined methods or constructors
>>>> into
>>>>         some tests.
>>>>         Should I remove the test case which is using Java API?
>>>>
>>>>         For example:
>>>>         assertDocumentation("Object.wait(|", "");
>>>>         assertDocumentation("\"\".indexOfSupplementary(|", "");
>>>>         + assertEval1("class A {void method() {}}");
>>>>         + assertDocumentation("A.method(|", "");
>>>>         + assertEval1("class A {private void method() {}}");
>>>>         + assertDocumentation("new A().method(|", "");
>>>>
>>>>         or
>>>>
>>>>         - assertDocumentation("Object.wait(|", "");
>>>>         - assertDocumentation("\"\".indexOfSupplementary(|", "");
>>>>         + assertEval1("class A {void method() {}}");
>>>>         + assertDocumentation("A.method(|", "");
>>>>         + assertEval1("class A {private void method() {}}");
>>>>         + assertDocumentation("new A().method(|", "");
>>>>
>>>>         Which is good?
>>>>
>>>>         Regards,
>>>>         shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>