> On 18 Jun 2017, at 19:47, Hamlin Li <huaming...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2017/6/17 1:31, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> On 14 Jun 2017, at 23:29, Hamlin Li <huaming...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Alan, Paul,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for review, new webrev at: 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8181478/webrev.01/
>>> 
>>> Please also check my comments inline.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2017/6/15 1:28, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>> On 14/06/2017 18:20, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 Jun 2017, at 01:00, Hamlin Li <huaming...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would you please review the below patch?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181478
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8181478/webrev.00/
>>>>>> 
>>>>> It took me a few moments to grok the NonExistentDriver behaviour. If i 
>>>>> got it correct, this is checking that deleteOnExit is working correctly?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If so it might be clearer to make this is a separate test that is run as 
>>>>> a driver and a test with different arguments performing the action and 
>>>>> then the checking.
>>> Agree, it's not that clear. And I just found out there is another test 
>>> java/io/File/DeleteOnExit.java testing the File.deleteOnExit. so I just 
>>> remove NonExistentDriver.java and related code.
>> Do you still require the following:
>> 
>>   48     static File nonDir = new File("x.Basic.nonDir");
>> ...
>>   93         nonDir.delete();
>> ...
>>  133         if (!nonDir.mkdir()) {
>>  134             fail(nonDir, "could not create");
>>  135         }
>>  136         if (!nonDir.exists() || !nonDir.isDirectory()) {
>>  137             fail(nonDir, "not created");
>>  138         }
>> 
>> since it is now just duplicating the assertions from the results of a call 
>> to show.
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thank you for detailed review.
> I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, I think it still needs to verify 
> the creation of a directory, so I merged the test of dir and nonDir in new 
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8181478/webrev.02/
> 

That’s better +1

Paul.

Reply via email to