Hi Roger,
Please find my comments belowand check the updated webrev.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nishjain/8177552/webrevs/webrev.02/
Regards,
Nishit Jain
On 22-11-2018 00:04, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Nishit,
Comments on the tests:
- The tests looks to be quite complete.
- Have the locale specific data been independently verified?
Or are they just assumed to be correct based on using CNF to
generate the formatted strings?
I have manually verified the data against the compact patterns in the
resource bundles to the best I can. In some cases, like testing CNF
rounding behavior "TestCNFRounding", the data is also verified against
the output produced by DecimalFormat.
- Is there any overlap between the format and parse patterns that can
be removed;
using the same dataprovider for both format and parse (and an extra
provider for unique cases).
Yes, there were patterns overlap in CompactPatternsValidity (now renamed
as TestCompactPatternsValidity), patterns are taken out and shared
between format and parse.
- Using TestNG consistently would improve the test suite.
OK. Updated EqualityCheck and SerializationTest (now named as
TestEquality and TestSerialization) to use TestNG.
- In comments, Capitalize the first word
- The names of the test files should be more consistent, some include
Test at the beginning,
some at the end and some not at all. The utility classes
(CompactFormatAndParse) name
doesn't make it clear it is not a test itself.
Updated.
Serialization Test: should be comparing the fields of the Format
instances,
not only that it formats a value the same.
It also compares the equality (if (!fmt.equals(obj))) so fields of the
instances are also matched.
To setup for future revisions, several serialized CNF instances should
be hardcoded
in the test and deserialized to be checked against the current CNF
instances.
Added TestDeserializeCNF.java which deserializes the hardcoded instances
in cnf1.ser.txt and cnf2.ser.txt. In the comments, also added the API
used to create the hexdump of the serializable instance, please check if
that is the correct way.
Using testng dataproviders would show a more regular structure.
I do not find the use of data provider to be useful here, as we just
have some instances which are serialized and deserialized with no
specific data to test.
CompactFormatAndParse.java:
- The method don't need "public" since they are used only in the test.
- unused import of BigInteger
OK
EqualityCheck:
- Its good form to always have an @run line, even if for default
behavior.
Moved it to use TestNG and added corresponding @run line
- The CNF.equals method includes both symbols and decimal pattern;
are there tests for those being the different?
Thanks. Added.
CompactPatternsValidity.java:
-60: Indentation of continued data array values would make it more
readable.
OK
- Is there any overlap between the format and parse patterns that can
be removed?
Using the same dataprovider for both format and parse (and an extra
provider for unique cases).
Yes, modified CompactPatternsValidity.java, as mentioned in the above
comment
CNFRoundingTest.java:
- Can the Rounding mode test methods be consolidated and pass in the
desired rounding mode.
It would save on some boilerplate.
Yes, updated.
Regards,
Nishit Jain
Thanks, Roger
On 11/21/2018 03:53 AM, Nishit Jain wrote:
Hi Naoto,
Updated the webrev based on suggestions
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nishjain/8177552/webrevs/webrev.01/
Changes made:
- Replaced List<String> with String[] to be added to the the resource
bundles
- refactored DecimalFormat.subparse() to be used by the CNF.parse(),
to reduce code duplication.
- Also updated it with other changes as suggested in the comments
Regards,
Nishit Jain
On 20-11-2018 00:33, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Nishit,
On 11/18/18 10:29 PM, Nishit Jain wrote:
Hi Naoto,
Please check my comments inline.
On 17-11-2018 04:52, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Nishit,
Here are my comments:
- CLDRConverter: As the compact pattern no more employs
List<String>, can we eliminate stringListEntry/Element, and use
Array equivalent instead?
Since the CNF design does not put any limit on the size of compact
pattern, so at the time of parsing the CLDR xmls using SAX parser,
it becomes difficult to identify the size of array when the parent
element of compact pattern is encountered, so I think it is better
to keep the List<String> while extracting the resources.
OK. However I'd not keep the List<String> format on generating the
resource bundle, as there is no reason to introduce yet another
bundle format other than the existing array of String.
- CompactNumberFormat.java
Multiple locations: Use StringBuilder instead of StringBuffer.
OK
line 268: The link points to
NumberFormat.getNumberInstance(Locale) instead of DecimalFormat
OK. Changed it at line 165 also.
line 855: no need to do toString(). length() can detect whether
it's empty or not.
line 884: "Overloaded method" reads odd here. I'd prefer
specializing in the "given number" into either long or biginteger.
OK
line 1500: subparseNumber() pretty much shares the same code with
DecimalFormat.subparse(). can they be merged?
The existing CNF.subParseNumber differs in the way parseIntegerOnly
is handled, DecimalFormat.parse()/subparse() behaviour is
unpredictable with parseIntegeronly = true when multipliers are
involved (Please see JDK-8199223).
Also, I had thought that the CNF.parse()/subparseNumber() should
*not *parse the exponential notation e.g. while parsing "1.05E4K"
the parsing should break at 'E' and returns 1.05, because 'E'
should be considered as unparseable character for general number
format pattern or compact number pattern, but this is not the case
with DecimalFormat.parse(). The below DecimalFormat general number
format instance
NumberFormat nf = NumberFormat.getNumberInstance();
nf.parse("1.05E4")
Successfully parse the string and returns 10500. The same behaviour
is there with other DecimalFormat instances also e.g. currency
instance.
Do you think this is an issue with DecimalFormat.parse() and CNF
should avoid parsing exponential numbers? Or, should CNF.parse() be
modified to be consistent with DecimalFormat.parse() in this aspect?
No, I understand there are differences. But I see a lot of
duplicated piece of code which I would like to eliminate.
line 1913-1923, 1950-1960, 1987-1997, 2024-2034: It simply calls
super. No need to override them.
Since setters are overridden, I think that it is better to override
getters also (even if they are just calling super and have same
javadoc) to keep them at same level. But, if you see no point in
keeping them in CNF, I will remove them. Does that need CSR change?
I don't see any point for override. I don't think there needs a CSR,
but better ask Joe about it.
line 2231: You need to test the type before cast. Otherwise
ClassCastException may be thrown.
The type is checked in the superclass equals method getClass() !=
obj.getClass(), so I think there is no need to check the type here.
OK.
Naoto
Regards,
Nishit Jain
Naoto
On 11/16/18 9:54 AM, Nishit Jain wrote:
Hi,
Please review this non trivial feature addition to NumberFormat API.
The existing NumberFormat API provides locale based support for
formatting and parsing numbers which includes formatting decimal,
percent, currency etc, but the support for formatting a number
into a human readable or compact form is missing. This RFE adds
that feature to format a decimal number in a compact format (e.g.
1000 -> 1K, 1000000 -> 1M in en_US locale) , which is useful for
the environment where display space is limited, so that the
formatted string can be displayed in that limited space. It is
defined by LDML's specification for Compact Number Formats.
http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/tr35-numbers.html#Compact_Number_Formats
RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177552
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nishjain/8177552/webrevs/webrev.00/
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8188147
Request to please help review the the change.
Regards,
Nishit Jain
