harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paulex Yang <paulex.y...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: should strings in exceptions match the reference implementation?
Date Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:12:52 GMT
Anton Avtamonov wrote:
> On 4/17/06, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 4/17/06, Anton Avtamonov <anton.avtamonov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Well, not completely agree. I RI has BUG, I agree to have
>>> corresponding Harmony test failing. However do you think that
>>> different exception messges say is a good reason to have failures? I
>>> don't think so. Just a minor differemce which can be 'formally
>>> documented' by using isHarmony() is tests.
>>>       
>> I agree with you that different exception messages are not failures. So in
>> my opnion, we'd better avoid such test cases.
>> If some exception messages are really very important to developers ( I don't
>> have any idea about such Exception classes),
>> I think RI should contain similiar information so that we can write some
>> test cases, which both RI and Harmony could pass, by verifying keywords
>> instead.
>> If "isHarmony()" is used, then what's the expected message? I don't think
>> there's a "Harmony exception message spec" :-)
>> People may argue which message is best or more meanfuling :)
>>     
>
> As I said already I also not sure if we really need those test cases.
> And I also would like to avoid them when possible. What I vote for is
> that if we still have to test such things (not only messages, maybe
> something else) we should not have failing tests on this.
>
> Besides, we decided to document "desired" deviations via JIRA. My
> point here is that all such deviations also should not fail on RI.
> Just because failure should indicate something was broken. No need to
> indicate this on 'known' places. For 'known' deviations we may also
> use isHarmony() add reference (in comment) to the corresponding JIRA
> issue.
>
> I proposed isHarmony() just because I don't know the better way to
> avoid failures and 'formally' document deviations.
>   
I consider the isHarmony() should be metadata, I have concerns to hard 
code in test cases. How about mark these test cases as "non-compatible" 
by annotation, by naming convention or more directly by some list, and 
use test script to handle them?
> --
> Anton Avtamonov,
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>   


-- 
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message