I figured that I would run an analogous test to the original with isParsable
and createNumber, and I ran into the following:
System.out.println(NumberUtils.isParsable("+2")); ----> false
System.out.println(NumberUtils.createNumber("+2")); ---> 2
I’m not sure if we should tackle that in this Jira issue. What do you guys
think?
-Rob
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> How about deprecating and renaming?
>
> isNumber -> isJavaNumberLiteral
> createNumber -> parseNumber
>
> this way there would be a clearer connection between isParsebale and the
> method that parses the number. Furthermore it is clearer what isNumber
> really does.
>
> Benedikt
>
> Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 30. Juli 2016 um 21:17:
>
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can this all be solved with better Javadocs?
>>>
>>
>> I don’t think so. So, I would think that we would do one of two things:
>>
>> (1) Clarify Javadocs, and set up unit tests to reflect the intent (that
>> being that createNumber and isNumber as slightly different)
>>
>> or
>>
>> (2) Refactor the code so that they use the same checks to either return
>> the boolean or create the number.
>>
>> Personally I’m indifferent, but I think those are the two different tacks
>> we can take.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2016 7:59 AM, "Rob Tompkins" <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Benedikt,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the insights here.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:53 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com <mailto:chtom...@gmail.com>> schrieb
>>>> am Do., 28. Juli 2016 um
>>>>> 14:23 Uhr:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, I’m trying to generalize LANG-1060, LANG-1040, LANG-1038,
>> and
>>>>>> LANG-992 with a single issue that actually hits all the bases here
>> with
>>>>>> NumberUtils.isNumber.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug (1):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System.out.println(lang.math.NumberUtils.isNumber(“+2”)); ---->
>>>>>> false
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System.out.println(lang.math.NumberUtils.createNumber(“+2));
>>>> ---->
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug (2):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System.out.println(lang.math.NumberUtils.isNumber(“01.5”));
>> ---->
>>>>>> false
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System.out.println(lang.math.NumberUtils.createNumber(“01.5));
>>>>>> ----> 1.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that we could externalize a considerable amount of the
>>>> code
>>>>>> underlying the two methods into shared methods, as it seems like all
>> the
>>>>>> validations in createNumber that predicate object creation should be
>>>>>> directly used in isNumber. I would love to hear folks’ thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is important to pay close attention to the JavaDocs in this
>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> NumberUtils.isNumber :
>>>>> Checks whether the String a valid Java number.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has nothing to do with createNumber:
>>>>> NumberUtils.createNumber: Turns a string value into a java.lang.Number
>>>>>
>>>>> What you're probably looking for is:
>>>>>
>>>>> NumberUtils.isParsebale: Checks whether the given String is a parsable
>>>>> number.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is, that isNumber tells you, whether putting the given
>>>>> String into Java code woul compile, while isParseble stells you
>> whether a
>>>>> call to createNumber will be successful.
>>>>
>>>> This feels confusing to me (mainly because I’m not clear of the context
>> of
>>>> the word “compile” here). But, I’m mostly agnostic regarding intent
>> here.
>>>> So let’s not concern ourselves with that.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the Jira issue that I created, LANG-1252, should just make the
>>>> javadoc clearer in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Along the same line of thought, in NumberUtilsTest
>>>> testIsNumber()
>>>> calls the function
>>>> private void compareIsNumberWithCreateNumber(final String val, final
>>>> boolean expected) {
>>>> final boolean isValid = NumberUtils.isNumber(val);
>>>> final boolean canCreate = checkCreateNumber(val);
>>>> if (isValid == expected && canCreate == expected) {
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>> fail("Expecting "+ expected + " for isNumber/createNumber using \"" +
>>>> val + "\" but got " + isValid + " and " + canCreate);
>>>> }
>>>> where “checkCreateNumber” is declared as:
>>>> private boolean checkCreateNumber(final String val) {
>>>> try {
>>>> final Object obj = NumberUtils.createNumber(val);
>>>> if (obj == null) {
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>> return true;
>>>> } catch (final NumberFormatException e) {
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> which continues to puzzle me. If, indeed, it is the case that isNumber
>> and
>>>> createNumber necessarily differ, might we also refactor the unit tests
>> as
>>>> part of LANG-1252 such that they aren’t directly correlated for the
>> sake of
>>>> validation?
>>>>
>>>> Again, many thanks for the response here.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
