Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of anton.avtamonov@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.204 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=NPKZ/NhQeTdi+1YT+rtbTDfpzCBJWmvMcgdturalCrmu48PujZSpP9L2yBCgz62qJaRmHz0MT0g+1LOSsXfWnq5MsI75o9+0Ks5qsdk9L9Am8yYGy63wKgypMeYlCW+J1aE2YGjs3mosFMH6748W5uTZ124b2BUyINPq1Dgo2pU=
Message-ID: <46d21a9a0604170037y225d0511i5377968a365d122e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:37:01 +0400
From: "Anton Avtamonov" <anton.avtamonov@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: should strings in exceptions match the reference implementation?
In-Reply-To: <4d0b24970604170019n6a85f398n16032db0a5492be7@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <fcb9f9160604151344p5995c843x18b5aaf3f9554d7f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c8e69f0604161823r63392d44j32ae82981d2a95a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46d21a9a0604162235n69f1479dp39f88773592406a8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fcb9f9160604162252i17989aeft3efbeadc2f57d2a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46d21a9a0604162306q73e0a474hca0d4a15bc8d66ed@mail.gmail.com>
	 <906dd82e0604162314w718bbc39ie266dc63da24c6a0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46d21a9a0604162325r57f4e420t1eb9e56fafde46d8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970604162336w8580472y49507407c268966f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46d21a9a0604162346g1bbba723u4a5f2f0aa25bb2f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970604170019n6a85f398n16032db0a5492be7@mail.gmail.com>

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 i=
n
> my opnion, we'd better avoid such test cases.
> If some exception messages are really very important to developers ( I do=
n'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.

--
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