On 2/19/2014 7:47 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I don't see an actual test added here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8035067/webrev/test/java/util/regex/RegExTest.java.udiff.html
 
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esherman/8035067/webrev/test/java/util/regex/RegExTest.java.udiff.html>


No actually test added, just added the bugid. The existing tests should cover 
all functional testing for the
supplementary characters. The fix is to enable the optimization path, black box 
type test does not work.

As I mentioned in the email, I did verify the fix by using the provided test 
case which uses reflect/Field
to go through regex's node chain. I feel uncomfortable to add that as a 
unit/regression test, as it is
too implementation detail dependent. But if the consensus is that type of test 
is OK to serve as a
unit/regression, I can surely add it in.

-Sherman


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Xueming Shen <xueming.s...@oracle.com 
<mailto:xueming.s...@oracle.com>> wrote:

    Hi,

    Please help codereview the change for JDK-8035076.

    Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035076
    Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8035067/webrev 
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esherman/8035067/webrev>

    This is regression caused by the change we made back to jdk7 to support case
    insensitive match, in which a base class SliceNode for Slice family was 
added and
    we mistakenly subclass the SliceS class to this newly added class, instead 
of
    the original Slice class. The BnM optimization for supplementary support, 
which
    is based on the "instanceof Slice", is therefor disabled. Below is the 
original
    webrev for that changeset.

    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/6486934_6233084_6504326_6436458 
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esherman/6486934_6233084_6504326_6436458>

    The proposed change is to subclass SliceS from Slice node. The change has 
been
    verified via the test case attached in the issue report. However I decided 
not to
    include this test as a regression test as it is too "implementation detail 
dependent".

    Thanks!
    -Sherman




Reply via email to