On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:11:00 GMT, Roger Riggs <rri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Since there is no longer a need to format an arbitrary date, I'd suggest
> going back to the original Date.toString() code. It removes the need to
> replicate the format using DateTimeBuilder and is known to be the same as
> before.
Done. I pushed an update to the PR which switches back to using Date.toString()
for the date comment. It also does a minor adjustment to the javadoc to clarify
this behaviour.
> test/jdk/java/util/Properties/StoreReproducibilityTest.java line 429:
>
>> 427: try {
>> 428: parsedDate = new
>> SimpleDateFormat(dateCommentFormat).parse(dateComment);
>> 429: } catch (ParseException pe) {
>
> Its slightly better to use the same date formatting and parsing APIs
> consistently.
> DateTimeFormatter.parse could be used here since DateTimeFormatter was used
> above.
> (Though the pattern uses "yyyy" instead of "uuuu" for the year.)
Done. I've updated the tests to use a consistent API for parsing these date
comments in the stored files. They now use the DateTimeFormatter APIs along
with the right pattern ("uuuu") to match the output of Date.toString().
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5372
