On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:00:02 GMT, Naoto Sato <na...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue >> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895? >> >> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is >> initialized to have a minimum and maximum values of `Long.MIN_VALUE` and >> `LONG.MAX_VALUE` respectively. However, `java.time.Instant` only supports >> `-31557014167219200L` and `31556889864403199L` as minimum and maximum values >> for the epoch second. >> >> The commit in this PR updates the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS`'s value >> range to match the supported min and max values of `Instant` (as suggested >> by Stephen in that JBS issue). This commit also introduces a test to verify >> this change. This new test method as well as existing tests in tier1, tier2 >> and tier3 continue to pass with this change. > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/temporal/ChronoField.java line 590: > >> 588: * This is necessary to ensure interoperation between calendars. >> 589: */ >> 590: // ValueRange matches the min and max epoch second supported by >> java.time.Instant > > Would we want to include this in the javadoc? The code should reference the constants in Instant.java (though may need to make them package private.) The javadoc can/should reference Instant.MIN and Instant.MAX (as the test does). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18674#discussion_r1556243941
