On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:49:48 GMT, Justin Lu <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review this PR which updates two MessageFormat sub format related > tests to be guaranteed to run under the `en_US` locale. > > There exists locale that do not provide distinct instances for separate > styles. For example, the `en_IN` locale provides the same LONG and SHORT > compact number instances. The test data is built to test sub formats under > the assumption that different styles do provide distinct instances. > > As this is the case, these tests should be ran under a locale that does > provide distinct instances for separate styles. test/jdk/java/text/Format/MessageFormat/CompactSubFormats.java line 29: > 27: * @summary Test MessageFormatPattern ability to recognize and produce > 28: * appropriate FormatType and FormatStyle for > CompactNumberFormat. > 29: * @run junit/othervm -Duser.language=en -Duser.country=US > CompactSubFormats I would instantiate MessageFormat explicitly with the `US` locale (using the 2-arg constructor), instead of implicitly specifying it with the system property. test/jdk/java/text/Format/MessageFormat/CompactSubFormats.java line 43: > 41: import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals; > 42: > 43: // This tests expects an en_US locale, as this locale provides distinct > instances Nit: typo tests -> test test/jdk/java/text/Format/MessageFormat/ListSubFormats.java line 31: > 29: * STANDARD, OR, and UNIT types are supported as built-in > patterns for > 30: * MessageFormat. All types use the FULL style. > 31: * @run junit/othervm -Duser.language=en -Duser.country=US ListSubFormats Same as above test/jdk/java/text/Format/MessageFormat/ListSubFormats.java line 42: > 40: import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertThrows; > 41: > 42: // This tests expects an en_US locale, as this locale provides distinct > instances ditto ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18498#discussion_r1540157210 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18498#discussion_r1540157737 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18498#discussion_r1540157897 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18498#discussion_r1540157979
