sahvx655-wq commented on PR #384: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-validator/pull/384#issuecomment-4622193536
fair point. NaN is a legitimate Double value and NumberFormat parses it by design, so rejecting it here is a behaviour change that could break callers who genuinely want to validate it. my reasoning was that a NaN which passes then slips past every isInRange/minValue check, since NaN compares false against everything, but on reflection that guard belongs to the caller, not this class. and as you spotted the infinity handling is already inconsistent (NaN and the ∞ symbol parse, +Infinity doesn't), which isn't something to paper over in this PR. happy to close this out, your edge-case test updates already pin the current behaviour as the sensible default. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
