Hi Pallavi,
The fix here seems to make padding to a fixed width incompatible with
adjacent value parsing.
That's not intuitive, since adjacent value parsing is intended to allow
more flexible parsing
of a combination leading fixed-width fields and subsequent variable
length fields.
The specification of the behavior of padding vs adjacent value parsing
should be investigated
and clarified if necessary.
The implementation would be better expressed as checking whether the
active PrinterParser
*is* a NumberPrinterParser as a precondition for entering the adjacent
parsing mode block
(and the necessary cast).
And otherwise, fall into the existing code in which the new Parser
becomes the new active parser.
The tests should be included in the existing test classes for padding,
and be written using
the direct DateTimeFormatterBuilder methods (padNext(), instead of the
patterns) since the patterns
are just a front end for the builder methods.
See test/java/time/format/TestPadPrinterDecorator.java
TestDateTimeFormatter.java:
line 96: please keep the static imports for testng together
Line 662: The odd formatting and incorrect indentation should no longer
be a problem
because the indentation will not need to change.
Regards, Roger
On 4/18/18 8:41 AM, Pallavi Sonal wrote:
Hi,
Please review the changes to the following issue:
Bug :https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193877
The proposed fix is located at:
Webrev :http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/8193877/webrev.00/
When padding is used in a pattern where there are unpadded values adjacent to padded ones
(like "pdQ") , the previous PrinterParser (used for parsing 'd' in the example
) is fetched to use its settings for parsing the next value('Q' in the example). But , in
cases like this , it is a PadPrinterDecoratorParser instead of an assumed
NumberPrinterParser and a ClassCastException is thrown.
The fix has been done to check such cases where the previous parserprinter is
PadPrinterDecoratorParser and use the new NumberPrinterParser instead for
parsing the next value.
All the tier1 and tier2 Mach 5 tests have passed.
Thanks,
Pallavi Sonal
