On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 18:48:58 GMT, Jan Lahoda <[email protected]> wrote:
>> test/langtools/tools/javac/patterns/ExhaustivenessConvenientErrors.java line >> 333: >> >>> 331: case Root(R2 _, R2(R1 _, R2 _), R2(R1 _, R1 >>> _)) -> 0; >>> 332: case Root(R2 _, R2(R1 _, R2 _), R2(R1 _, R2 >>> _)) -> 0; >>> 333: // case Root(R2 _, R2(R1 _, R2 _), R2(R2 _, >>> R1 _)) -> 0; >> >> it could be confusing to have commented code in a test, I guess probably to >> just remove the commented code? > > These commented-out cases are the ones that are missing from the switch to be > exhaustive. I kept them there intentionally, so see what the user might have > missed, so that it can be compared with what javac reports. I can add > comments to them if desired. I'm ok with these comments -- I'm a bit less ok with the ones that say "this might be better in this form" -- either we file these case as follow up bugs, or we might as well remove the comments, as I don't think a comment in a test is the best way to track issues/further improvements ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27256#discussion_r2758531330
