On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:51:59 GMT, Roman Kennke <rken...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Having followed both #4263 and this PR from the sidelines, may I ask why for > #4263 much more rigorous testing is asked but not here? E.g. test for NPE, > random-sized files/buffers, random position, return value, comprehensive JMH > tests to show performance, etc? I'm all for high quality standards and good > test coverage, but why are we seemingly measuring with double standards? I don't think your comment is fair. The FIS PR is modest, covering one scenario, it's easy to review. The serious bugs that we pointed out have been addressed and test coverage has been added. The Channels PR is much more ambitious and is trying to cover a matrix of scenarios involving file channel and selectable channels, lots of corner cases and potential issues, and will require a lot of review cycles. None of the scenarios had any test coverage initially. This has been partially addressed but the proposal is still unwieldy, hence the discussion on reducing the scope to something manageable. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5097
