To confirm, this counts as a review "yes"? Stephen
On 12 March 2014 14:27, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > The change look ok to me too. > > There is a change in behavior here, but I don't expect it to be surprising ( > no NPE where there once was ), so I think it should be fine for 8u-dev also. > > The TCK test changes however, may not be suitable for 8u. Though I'm not > sure how these tests feed from the OpenJDK repo into the actual TCK. > > -Chris. > > On 12/03/14 13:54, roger riggs wrote: >> >> Looks fine, (not a reviewer). >> >> I can sponsor the fix when reviewed. >> >> Thanks, Roger >> >> >> On 3/12/2014 6:45 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >>> >>> This is a request for review of this bug: >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036818 >>> >>> The method DateTimeFormatter withResolverFields() is supposed to >>> accept null. This is to allow a coy of the formatter to be returned >>> reset to the original state of having no resolver fields. The docs >>> say: >>> "@param resolverFields the new set of resolver fields, null if no fields" >>> which was written to indicate that resetting to null is permitted. >>> >>> The fix is to check for null and return a copy of the formatter. Note >>> that there are two variations of the method which need fixing. >>> >>> Proposed patch: >>> https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/9395197 >>> The patch includes no spec changes. >>> The patch fixes the broken TCK tests. >>> >>> I need a reviewer and a committer please. >>> thanks >>> Stephen >> >> >
