Anton Avtamonov wrote:
On 4/24/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
Hi,
I thought that we agreed on utilizing JUnit's exception handling (see [1]).
So the next code from added unit test doesn't follow this convention. Also
why it checks the same code twice?
try {
Inet6Address.getByAddress("123", addr2, 3);
} catch (UnknownHostException e) {
fail("no exception should be thrown");
}
try {
Inet6Address.getByAddress("123", addr2, 3);
} catch (UnknownHostException e) {
fail("no exception should be thrown");
}
Sorry, it's a mistake. It's assumed use "-1" in the second case.
I'll upload a patch right away.
And as we discussed try/catch is not required here, right?
Yes. We should add throws declaration on the method.
--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]