HI all,
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/8032510/webrev.04/
Changes: chnaged the data provider as suggested
Regards,
Nadeesh
On 12/11/2015 9:24 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Nadeesh,
The API looks fine.
I think the tests would be more readable if the Durations being tested
were created in the data provider.
Without a comment, it just looks like a lot of numbers.
The test methods arguments would then be (Duration dividend, Duration
divisor, long expected).
+ @DataProvider(name="dividedByDur_provider")
+ Object[][] provider_dividedByDur() {
+ return new Object[][] {
+ {new Duration.ofSeconds(0, 0), new Duration.ofSeconds(1, 0), 0},
etc.
Thanks, Roger
On 12/11/2015 7:14 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Fine by me.
Stephen
On 11 December 2015 at 11:53, nadeesh tv <nadeesh...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/8032510/webrev.03/
Regards,
Nadeesh TV
On 12/11/2015 4:45 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Missing blank line after the new method.
Typo: "diviosr"
Replace:
Objects.requireNonNull(divisor, "divisor is null");
with
Objects.requireNonNull(divisor, "divisor");
to match existing JSR-310 code.
Test case looks fine.
thanks
Stephen
On 11 December 2015 at 11:07, nadeesh tv <nadeesh...@oracle.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
Please review a fix for
Bug Id - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032510
Enhancement - Add java.time.Duration.dividedBy(Duration)
webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/8032510/webrev.02/
--
Thanks and Regards,
Nadeesh TV
--
Thanks and Regards,
Nadeesh TV
--
Thanks and Regards,
Nadeesh TV
