Hi Pavel,
That looks ok.
It would be a bit more comfortable to read and compare with the parent
contract
if it could use the len < 0 phrase.
But as written it clearly matches the implementation and is logically
equivalent.
Roger
On 4/27/2015 12:48 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
Could you please review my change for JDK-8029804
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8029804/webrev.00/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an issue where java.io.BufferedWriter.write(String s, int off, int len)
doesn't check required preconditions for `off` and `len` and goes straight to
the algorithm procedures. As a result an acceptable region for (off, len) is
wider than the one declared by parent. For example, following calls should throw
IndexOutOfBoundsException, but they don't:
bw.write("abc", 10, 0)
bw.write("abc", 5, -1)
bw.write("abc", -7, 0)
bw.write("abc", -2, -3)
bw.write("abc", 3, Integer.MAX_VALUE)
The problem though is not in the bug itself (it's been there for a long time),
but rather than the amendment to the javadoc which supposed to describe this
divergence is not comprehensive:
* <p> If the value of the <tt>len</tt> parameter is negative then no
* characters are written. This is contrary to the specification of this
* method in the {@linkplain java.io.Writer#write(java.lang.String,int,int)
* superclass}, which requires that an {@link IndexOutOfBoundsException} be
* thrown.
Suggested solution is to update the javadoc and provide a test that gives a
certain amount of confidence that the javadoc captures the actual contract.
-Pavel
