On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:17:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to fix the issue 
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8212895?
>> 
>> As noted in that issue, the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS` currently is 
>> initialized to have a minimum and maximum values of `Long.MIN_VALUE` and 
>> `LONG.MAX_VALUE` respectively. However, `java.time.Instant` only supports 
>> `-31557014167219200L` and `31556889864403199L` as minimum and maximum values 
>> for the epoch second.
>> 
>> The commit in this PR updates the `ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS`'s value 
>> range to match the supported min and max values of `Instant` (as suggested 
>> by Stephen in that JBS issue). This commit also introduces a test to verify 
>> this change. This new test method as well as existing tests in tier1, tier2 
>> and tier3 continue to pass with this change.
>
> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   no need for {@code} in javadoc

Thank you Naoto and Roger for the inputs and the reviews.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18674#issuecomment-2060988355

Reply via email to