On 11/23/2015 08:58 PM, John Rose wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com
> <mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Though, it may be better to get yet another pair of eyes.
>>
>> One minor nit: In the tests, in the summary, it is written, "Test
>> Integer.toString method*s*", but only one of the overloads is tested.
>
> Here's another nit in the tests.
> This is supposed to "wiggle around" critical points, which I agree with.
> But it only wiggles above:
>
> 39 while (base < Long.MAX_VALUE / 10) {
> 40 for (int c = 1; c < 65536; c++) {
> 41 buildAndTest(base + c);
> 42 }
> 43 base = (base == 0) ? 1 : base * 10;
> 44 }
Yes, it *does* wiggle around:
71 test(sbN.toString(), -c);
72 test(sbP.toString(), c);
This saves much testing time to build both "c" and "-c" representations.
> You'll need to guard the call to buildAndTest to avoid negatives.
It already does:
51 private static void buildAndTest(int c) {
52 if (c < 0) {
53 throw new IllegalArgumentException("Test bug: cannot
handle negatives, " + c);
54 }
> You could also start base at, say, 10000.
I don't see a reason for this, why? The overlap in the test data is
fine, if that makes test more understandable and therefore reliable.
Thanks,
-Aleksey
