On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Kevin Zhou<zhoukevi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nathan, > In addition, as for the same character, it has platform-dependent value of > the corresponding byte. On Z, it doesn't support ASCII but adopts EBCDIC > encoding. For instance, the byte for a new line on Z is 0x15 while 0x0A on > Windows or Linux. If we use assertions by byte values, we may need conduct > some encoding conversions before asserts. By comparison, asserting with > strings is preferred.
I thought Sockets operated on bytes, what do characters have to do with this? Are there some String objects being passed into Sockets? -Nathan > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Nathan Beyer <nbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Tony Wu<wuyue...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, Nathan >> > I dont like assertion on byte arrays. The error message printed out by >> > junit is less readable than String when it fails. >> >> That's a trivial problem to fix - write a helper method that does a >> better assert - i've written such a thing dozens of times. Not to >> mention, if you use JUnit 4 - this is no longer a problem = >> >> http://junit.org/apidocs/org/junit/Assert.html#assertArrayEquals%28byte[],%20byte[]%29<http://junit.org/apidocs/org/junit/Assert.html#assertArrayEquals%28byte%5B%5D,%20byte%5B%5D%29> >> In addition, there's several hamcrest matchers for even better error >> descriptions. The dependency is there, it just needs to be used. >> >> -Nathan >> >> > What' more it's a >> > nightmare if you want to append or remove some bytes. >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Nathan Beyer<nbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Kevin Zhou<zhoukevi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Nathan, >> >>> Yes. Actually I do try the String(byte[], String) on z/OS but still >> fail to >> >>> solve the previous failure. As I tested, the Socket on Z returns >> strings in >> >>> platform-dependent encoding, thus the String(byte[]) is adopted. >> >> >> >> Why is this even asserting with Strings? Shouldn't the assertions be >> >> using byte values for fixtures? >> >> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbe...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> This code is now platform-dependant. The String(byte[]) assumes the >> >>>> bytes are encoded in the platform's default encoding. The code should >> >>>> really use String(byte[], String) with a specific encoding. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Nathan >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 PM, <zhouke...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>>> > Author: zhoukevin >> >>>> > Date: Fri Jul 31 03:29:46 2009 >> >>>> > New Revision: 799505 >> >>>> > >> >>>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=799505&view=rev >> >>>> > Log: >> >>>> > Fix test failure of SocketTest.test_sendUrgentDataI method for z/OS. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Modified: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/test/api/common/org/apache/harmony/luni/tests/java/net/SocketTest.java >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Modified: >> >>>> >> harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/test/api/common/org/apache/harmony/luni/tests/java/net/SocketTest.java >> >>>> > URL: >> >>>> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/test/api/common/org/apache/harmony/luni/tests/java/net/SocketTest.java?rev=799505&r1=799504&r2=799505&view=diff >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> ============================================================================== >> >>>> > --- >> >>>> >> harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/test/api/common/org/apache/harmony/luni/tests/java/net/SocketTest.java >> >>>> (original) >> >>>> > +++ >> >>>> >> harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/test/api/common/org/apache/harmony/luni/tests/java/net/SocketTest.java >> >>>> Fri Jul 31 03:29:46 2009 >> >>>> > @@ -1582,8 +1582,10 @@ >> >>>> > server.close(); >> >>>> > >> >>>> > receivedString = new String(myBytes, 0, totalBytesRead); >> >>>> > - assertEquals("Urgent data was not received with one urgent >> >>>> byte", >> >>>> > - sendString + (char) urgentByte + sendString, >> >>>> receivedString); >> >>>> > + assertEquals( >> >>>> > + "Urgent data was not received with one urgent >> byte", >> >>>> > + sendString + new String(new byte[] { urgentByte }) >> + >> >>>> sendString, >> >>>> > + receivedString); >> >>>> > >> >>>> > /* >> >>>> > * Test 3: Now validate that urgent data is received as >> expected. >> >>>> Expect >> >>>> > @@ -1634,7 +1636,8 @@ >> >>>> > >> >>>> > receivedString = new String(myBytes, 0, totalBytesRead); >> >>>> > assertEquals("Urgent data was not received with two urgent >> >>>> bytes", >> >>>> > - sendString + (char) urgentByte1 + (char) >> urgentByte2 >> >>>> > + sendString >> >>>> > + + new String(new byte[] { urgentByte1, >> >>>> urgentByte2 }) >> >>>> > + sendString, receivedString); >> >>>> > >> >>>> > /* >> >>>> > @@ -1663,8 +1666,8 @@ >> >>>> > client.close(); >> >>>> > server.close(); >> >>>> > >> >>>> > - assertEquals("Sole urgent data was not received", (int) >> >>>> urgentByte, >> >>>> > - byteRead); >> >>>> > + assertEquals("Sole urgent data was not received", >> >>>> > + (int) (urgentByte & 0xff), byteRead); >> >>>> > } >> >>>> > >> >>>> > /** >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> Yours, Kevin Zhou >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Tony Wu >> > China Software Development Lab, IBM >> > >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Yours, Kevin Zhou >
