Code Review Request for Bug #4802647 (original) (raw)

Brandon Passanisi brandon.passanisi at oracle.com
Thu Dec 1 22:42:05 UTC 2011

Hi Jason. Thanks for your response. I was thinking about how I can improve the test using your suggestion. I could possibly do the following:

1. Find all of the subclasses of AbstractCollection which override
removeAll(Collection<?>) and which also contain the spec language
which specifies that NullPointerException is thrown if the specified
collection is null.

2. Find all of the subclasses of AbstractCollection which override
retainAll(Collection<?>) and which also contain the spec language
which specifies that NullPointerException is thrown if the specified
collection is null.

3. Add the classes found in #1 and #2 to the test.

4. If any of the new classes added because of  #3 result in a test
failure, it might be a good idea to file a new bug as Bug #4802647
specifically mentions subclasses of AbstractCollection which do not
override remainAll, retainAll.

5. The public subclasses of AbstractCollection which do not override
removeAll, retainAll (probably) shouldn't be included in the test as
the currently existing NewAbstractCollection represents this scenario.

What do you think?

Thanks.

On 11/30/2011 2:04 PM, Jason Mehrens wrote:

Brandon,

> Are there any opinions on this from other Collections experts? > >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/4802647/0/webrev/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emduigou/4802647/0/webrev/> Shouldn't the test include all collections included with the JDK? Any override of these methods could repeat the same (bad) behavior. Jason

-- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Brandon Passanisi | Principle Member of Technical Staff

Oracle Java Standards Conformance

Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list