This looks fine to me as well. I am fine with the @ignore as I don't suspect anyone would be able to sneak in a change which removed the @ignore without anyone noticing and the comment for why it is marked @ignore seems adequate.
Mike On Aug 25 2014, at 13:28 , Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 25/08/2014 18:37, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> Hi friends of ByteArrayOutputStream, >> >> I'm trying to clean up an apparent oversight when I tried to fix huge array >> resizing back in >> 6933217: Huge arrays handled poorly in core libraries >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8055949 >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/ByteArrayOutputStream-MAX_ARRAY_SIZE/ >> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/webrevs/openjdk9/ByteArrayOutputStream-MAX_ARRAY_SIZE/> >> >> The 2x capacity gap was noticed by real users! > The change to BAOS looks okay, I don't recall why it wasn't updated with the > previous changes. > > I'm not sure about adding a test with @ignore though, maybe the @test should > just be dropped to avoid the temptation to "fix" the test before there is > support for selecting tests based on the resources available. > > -Alan
