Request for review : 7121314 : Behavior mismatch between AbstractCollection.toArray(T[] ) and its spec (original) (raw)

Sean Chou zhouyx at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Mar 29 02:59:19 UTC 2012 

Sure, I'll try to make a final version.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:36 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>wrote:

Hi Ulf,

Thanks for the updates. This will take a little rearranging to get into the right form I think - a single file is easier to deal with so we could nest the TestCollection class. Regarding setPseudoConcurrentChronologic**alSizeSequence, I think perhaps: /** Sets the values that size() will return on each use. The next call to size will return sizes[0], then sizes[1] etc. This allows us to emulate a concurrent change to the contents of the collection without having to perform concurrent changes. If sizes contains a larger value, the collection will appear to have shrunk when iterated; if a smaller value then the collection will appear to have grown when iterated */ void setSizeSequence(int... sizes) { this.sizes = sizes; nextSize = 0; } Sean: can you massage this into a final version? If not I will try to do so but I'm about to head out to JavaOne Japan and then am taking some vacation time. Might be something I can work on on the plane :) Thanks, David

On 29/03/2012 4:48 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote: Hi David, Sean,

I have made little changes to make understanding little easier, see attachment... -Ulf

Am 28.03.2012 07:29, schrieb David Holmes: Hi Ulf, I understand your point about ensuring we test AbstractCollection.toArray but I find this revised test much harder to understand. Also in the name setPseudoConcurrentSizeCourse the word "Course" doesn't fit. I'm not sure what you were meaning here? Perhaps just modifySize or emulateConcurrentSizeChange ? Thanks, David

-- Best Regards, Sean Chou

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list