The changes look ok to me Stephen. I defer to others for the handling of the test/TCK changes.
-Chris. > On 20 Mar 2014, at 18:24, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > > Hi there, > It would be great if I could get a review please. > > The patch is viewable in plain text at JIRA (for IP reasons): > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/19216/ParseWithZone.patch > > The same patch is viewable in a nice format at GitHub > https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/9505761 > > This really needs to make 8u20 IMO, so I need to get it into jdk9 first > thanks > Stephen > > > >> On 12 March 2014 12:29, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: >> This is a request for review of this bug: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033662 >> and the duplicate: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033659 >> >> The javadoc of the method java.time.format.DateTimeFormatter::withZone says: >> "If no zone has been parsed, then this override zone will be included >> in the result of the parse where it can be used to build instants and >> date-times." >> However, the implementation doesn't obey this. >> >> This is a very unfortunate bug that makes some date-time parsing a lot >> harder. >> >> A second related bug in an egde case - not properly handling a >> ChronoZonedDateTime from TemporalField.resolve - is also tested for >> and fixed. >> >> >> Proposed patch: >> https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/9505761 >> The patch includes no spec changes. >> The patch includes new and refactored TCK tests. The new tests for >> withZone() and withChronology() are based on the spec. >> >> I need a reviewer and a committer please. >> thanks
