I hope we can restrict the code change to what the bug description is about. IMHO this bug should only include cleanup and introduce no obvious behavior change.
Any other fix can go to another bug. --Max > On Nov 13, 2014, at 08:57, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <otavioj...@java.net> > wrote: > > But this class is an Exception, doesn't make sense an exception get another > Exception. > IMHO: I prefer this way > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@cosoco.de> wrote: > >> Hi Otávio, >> I now think you could replace >> if (!expected.isEmpty()) >> with >> assert !expected.isEmpty(); >> >> If expected ever would be empty, the only thing which happens is, that a >> "'" is missing in a message which anyway doesn't make sense without >> arguments. >> >> -Ulf >> >> ......
