harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Orlov" <amor...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: matching reference implementation exception behaviour
Date Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:08:19 GMT
Hi folks,

Sorry to getting this thread back - hopefully this message is relevant
to it. We've written a tool that runs all J2SE API methods passing
null, empty strings, 0, -1 etc. as parameters. It has discovered 163
inconsistency of Harmony API implementation with BEA JRockit 1.5.0.
You can find them attached ("------------" means JRE doesn't throw any
exception).

I haven't investigated all of them yet. However apparently we have
dozens of real inconsistencies that might be fixed according to
Harmony guidelines on exception compatibility. We're going to check
the inconsistencies one by one. Do you think it makes sense to open
one JIRA issue for all of them and put it there?

Thanks,
Alex Orlov.
Intel Middleware products Division

On 3/24/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> George Harley wrote:
> > Mark Hindess wrote:
> >> As you might have noticed, if you are reading the JIRA messages on the
> >> commits list, I've been looking at the error case behaviour of
> >> constructors.  (In fact, I've written a Perl script to generate a
> >> program to creates several thousand test cases from the constructor
> >> specification in a japi file.  I'll probably extend it to test other
> >> static methods when I have a spare minute.)
> >>
> >> I'm wondering how far we should try to match the behaviour of the
> >> reference implementation.  For instance, I've been submitting fixes
> >> for a number of cases of incorrect exceptions being thrown and I think
> >> they are worth fixing, but then I came across this one:
> >>
> >>   j.io.RandomAccessFile((j.l.String)null,""): # i.e. null filename,
> >> empty mode
> >>
> >> the RI throws j.l.IllegalArgumentException because it checks the mode
> >> first but we throw a NullPointerException because we check the file
> >> first.
> >>
> >> Does it matter?  Should we be matching behaviour?
> >>
> >
> > Wasn't this the topic for a fairly recent discussion on the list ? If I
> > can recall correctly, the consensus seemed to be YES it matters and YES
> > we should be matching behaviour.
>
> Yes - if the spec doesn't say anything, and the RI isn't obviously
> broken or stupid, then follow the RI.
>
> If the spec does say something, we need to make a decision - follow the
> spec or follow the RI (and log it...)
>
> geir
>
> >
> > And if that wasn't the consensus then it should have been ;-)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > George
> >
> >> Regards,
> >>  Mark.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
> >> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message