Re: [testing] pre-commit testing (was: Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java)

2009-11-18 Thread Mark Hindess
In message 4b02c37a.2020...@gmail.com, Tim Ellison writes: On 17/Nov/2009 03:50, Nathan Beyer wrote: 2009/11/16 Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com: Funny. We don't have a requirement that a committer have to test the code before committing it here [1]. I suppose some things are

[testing] pre-commit testing (was: Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java)

2009-11-17 Thread Tim Ellison
On 17/Nov/2009 03:50, Nathan Beyer wrote: 2009/11/16 Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com: Funny. We don't have a requirement that a committer have to test the code before committing it here [1]. I suppose some things are just assumed. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter

Re: [testing] pre-commit testing (was: Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java)

2009-11-17 Thread Alexei Fedotov
I would rather call this misunderstanding. Jesse run one set of tests, Tim expected another set. One way to correct the problem is to agree that committers run a specific minimal set of tests, for example, on one platform. I thought we had such agreements documented, but failed to find a proper

Re: [testing] pre-commit testing (was: Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java)

2009-11-17 Thread Alexei Fedotov
Ok, done. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Nathan Beyer nbe...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/17 Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com: I would rather call this misunderstanding. Jesse run one set of tests, Tim expected another set. One way to If you think it should be documented on the wiki,

Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java

2009-11-16 Thread Alexei Fedotov
Funny. We don't have a requirement that a committer have to test the code before committing it here [1]. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Jesse Wilson jessewil...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Tim Ellison

Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java

2009-11-16 Thread Regis
Alexei Fedotov wrote: Funny. We don't have a requirement that a committer have to test the code before committing it here [1]. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter This page just point out the steps to configure develop tools for a new committer. Testing code is what *every*

Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java

2009-11-16 Thread Nathan Beyer
2009/11/16 Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com: Funny. We don't have a requirement that a committer have to test the code before committing it here [1]. I suppose some things are just assumed. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Jesse

Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java

2009-11-13 Thread Tim Ellison
This commit breaks a couple of existing compatibility tests for BufferedReader: java.lang.NullPointerException: buffer is null at java.io.BufferedReader.read(BufferedReader.java:282) at

Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java

2009-11-13 Thread Jesse Wilson
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Tim Ellison t.p.elli...@gmail.com wrote: This commit breaks a couple of existing compatibility tests for BufferedReader: Yup, I saw this and I'm fixing it. I suspect it's just a bogus test. Sorry about that!

Re: svn commit: r835212 - /harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni/src/main/java/java/io/BufferedReader.java

2009-11-13 Thread Jesse Wilson
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Tim Ellison t.p.elli...@gmail.com wrote: I took a look at the tests briefly, they are checking exception throwing compatibility, something that we aim to maintain with the RI as rightly or wrongly apps depend upon non-spec'd behavior. Sorry about this guys.