harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][luni] Arrays.sort() incompatibility with RI
Date Wed, 16 May 2007 11:00:52 GMT
Thanks Alexey.

Regards,
Oliver

Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> Agreed, I've filed a new bug agains Eclipse [1].
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=187223
>
> 2007/5/16, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com>:
>> Agreed. Should sort() be expected to behave like the RI for invalid
>> comparators? IMHO the answer is no. I think in this case a bug should be
>> raised with Eclipse to get the test fixed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> Aleksey Ignatenko wrote:
>> > The only fix for all related issues is to have the same 
>> implementation of
>> > such functionality as RI, as you understand it is unreachable goal 
>> unless
>> > you use RI classlib. So therefore I would say the right solution is to
>> > fix
>> > tests.
>> >
>> > Aleksey.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/16/07, Sergey Kuksenko <sergey.kuksenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As we discussed the source of the errror is incorrect comparator.
>> >> However, I can suggest a patch to Arrays which makes Arrays.sort()
>> >> slightly
>> >> close to RI.
>> >> With the patch sorting algorithm is not changed, but
>> >> ArraysSortTest.javais
>> >> passed as on RI.
>> >> The patch is attached to the issue.
>> >>
>> >> On 5/16/07, Aleksey Ignatenko <aleksey.ignatenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > From H-3339 comment:
>> >> >
>> >> > As the bug is in the tests then it is to be filed on Eclipse and 
>> this
>> >> JIRA
>> >> > closed with comment about Eclipse bug.
>> >> > Please, see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=176157 as
>> >> > example
>> >> > of Harmony related bug.
>> >> >
>> >> > BR,
>> >> > Aleksey Ignatenko.
>> >> >
>> >> > On 5/15/07, Sergey Kuksenko <sergey.kuksenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi All,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > As you wrote in the JIRA the reason of failure is incorrect
>> >> Comparator
>> >> > > which
>> >> > > is used in the test.
>> >> > > The Comparator violates the follwing rule from specification:
>> >> > > "The implementor must ensure that sgn(compare(x, y)) ==
>> >> > > -sgn(compare(y, x))for all
>> >> > > x and y."
>> >> > > So I thing that It would be more correct to fix a comparator from
>> >> test.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Some words about bug2bug compatibility. The fact that RI has
>> >> different
>> >> > > result on this comparator means nothing, because in case of
>> >> different
>> >> > > incorect comparator RI may give a different unpredictable
>> >> results. So
>> >> > > should
>> >> > > we check *all possible set of incorrect comparators* and move
>> >> exactly
>> >> in
>> >> > > same results as done by RI?
>> >> > > I think that it will mean that we should have completely the same
>> >> > > implementation of sorting.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 5/15/07, Eugene Ostrovsky <eugene.s.ostrovsky@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi all.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Some of eclipse tests pass on RI but fail on harmony. See
>> >> > > > 
>> *HARMONY-3339<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3339>
>> >> > > > * .
>> >> > > > The tests are incorrect. They pass on RI due to difference
in
>> >> > > > implementation
>> >> > > > of Arrays.sort() method.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Shall we alter our Array.sort() implementation to be consistent
>> >> with
>> >> > RI
>> >> > > > ant
>> >> > > > to make these buggy tests pass?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > Eugene.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Best regards,
>> >> > > ---
>> >> > > Sergey Kuksenko.
>> >> > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> ---
>> >> Sergey Kuksenko.
>> >> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> -- 
>> Oliver Deakin
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
>> number 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
>> PO6 3AU
>>
>>
>

-- 
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


Mime
View raw message