On 8 Aug 2016, at 13:55, Svetlana Nikandrova
wrote:
>> ...
>> On 02.08.2016 20:25, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:
>>> Pavel, Chris,
>>>
>>> thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's comments
>>> except the one mentioned by Chris below. I saw tests with a really long bug
>>> list
Chris,
could you please take a look? Pavel said he is ok with this version.
Thank you,
Svetlana
On 04.08.2016 15:31, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:
Kindly reminder.
On 02.08.2016 20:25, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:
Pavel, Chris,
thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's comment
Kindly reminder.
On 02.08.2016 20:25, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:
Pavel, Chris,
thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's comments
except the one mentioned by Chris below. I saw tests with a really
long bug list in @bug so I think it's a good practice to avoid testbug
numbe
Pavel, Chris,
thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's comments
except the one mentioned by Chris below. I saw tests with a really long
bug list in @bug so I think it's a good practice to avoid testbug
numbers. Hope it is not critical.
I also switched back from Writer to Ou
> On 1 Aug 2016, at 12:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> ...return len;
>
> 5. I believe we should add 8162876 to @bug
Strictly speaking, we should not. The @bug should capture the bug numbers
that the test exercises the changes for. It is not necessary to include the bug
number for a bug to the tes
A couple of minor issues:
1. I wonder if "vedio" is a typo left from day 1?
26 * @summary http://www.clipstream.com vedio does not play; read() problem
2. "serverSocket != null" checks seem to be useless (serverSocket is final and
initialized in constructor).
87 if (serverSocke
Hello,
please review this test clean-up. Test
sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently with
stale threads remaining.
I've done some refactoring to make sure that all request data is read,
resources are closed and I also hope test is more readable now.
Webrev:
http:/
