On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:04:16 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
>> Hi, this PR fixes
>> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
>> whether the list was
>> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
>> 1. it was not empty (modified by c
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 16:04:16 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
>> Hi, this PR fixes
>> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
>> whether the list was
>> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
>> 1. it was not empty (modified by c
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 13:51:10 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Leon Linhart has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reverted incorrect change and improved test coverage
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/collections/O
> Hi, this PR fixes
> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
> whether the list was
> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
> 1. it was not empty (modified by calling
> `#clear()`), or if 2. it was modified as result of th
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:47:37 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
>> Hi, this PR fixes
>> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
>> whether the list was
>> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
>> 1. it was not empty (modified by c
> Hi, this PR fixes
> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
> whether the list was
> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
> 1. it was not empty (modified by calling
> `#clear()`), or if 2. it was modified as result of th
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:49:12 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Makes sense to me. I changed it accordingly.
>
> I don't think this change is correct. `setAll(Collection)` should return
> true if the list is modified. As discussed in
> an [earlier comment](#issuecomment-684117392) this means return
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:23:54 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/collections/ModifiableObservableListBase.java
>> line 97:
>>
>>> 95: clear();
>>> 96: addAll(col);
>>> 97: return true;
>>
>> I think following code would be m
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:23:54 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
>> Leon Linhart has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Removed unused import and addressed review comments
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/collections/Modifiab
> Hi, this PR fixes
> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
> whether the list was
> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
> 1. it was not empty (modified by calling
> `#clear()`), or if 2. it was modified as result of th
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:50:55 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
> Hi, this PR fixes
> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
> whether the list was
> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
> 1. it was not empty (modified by callin
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:50:55 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
> Hi, this PR fixes
> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
> whether the list was
> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
> 1. it was not empty (modified by callin
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:54:27 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Hi, this PR fixes
>> [JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
>> whether the list was
>> actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if
>> 1. it was not empty (modified by
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 00:23:38 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> While adding unit tests, I noticed that I missed an important edge-case that
>> has to be considered when computing if a
>> list was modified. The initial implementation assumed that
>>> the list was modified if
>>>1. it was not empty (m
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:17:18 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
>> One overall comment while we are waiting for your OCA to be approved.
>>
>> I don't think the complexity of this proposed fix to `setAll` is warranted.
>> I would prefer a simpler fix that returns
>> `false` if both the current list and t
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 00:23:38 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> I don't think the complexity of this proposed fix to `setAll` is warranted. I
> would prefer a simpler fix that returns
> `false` if both the current list and the new list are empty, and `true`
> otherwise.
@kevinrushforth Thanks for yo
Hi, this PR fixes
[JDK-8251946](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251946) computing
whether the list was
actually modified instead of just returning `true`. The list was modified if 1.
it was not empty (modified by calling
`#clear()`), or if 2. it was modified as result of the `#addAll()
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:27:15 GMT, Leon Linhart
wrote:
>> @TheMrMilchmann I am not actively working on that bug, so you can proceed
>> with this PR. I will review it when it is
>> ready.
>> Once you have submitted the OCA, please add a comment to this PR with the
>> `/signed` command (and nothi
18 matches
Mail list logo
