harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][luni] Arrays.sort() incompatibility with RI
Date Wed, 16 May 2007 10:32:13 GMT
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
>
>

Mime
View raw message