On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:15:48 GMT, Srikanth Adayapalam <sadayapa...@openjdk.org>
wrote:
>> PR for Sequenced Collections implementation.
>
> Please include the following fix for the langtools test "failures":
>
>
> diff --git a/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> b/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> index e8110396dac..8d53c3b9d6f 100644
> --- a/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> +++ b/test/langtools/tools/javac/api/TestJavacTaskScanner.java
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ public class TestJavacTaskScanner extends ToolTester {
> System.out.println("#allMembers: " + numAllMembers);
>
> check(numTokens, "#Tokens", 1054);
> - check(numParseTypeElements, "#parseTypeElements", 158);
> + check(numParseTypeElements, "#parseTypeElements", 170);
> check(numAllMembers, "#allMembers", 52);
> }
> diff --git
> a/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> b/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> index b7e9121a956..c47b7a7de92 100644
> --- a/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> +++ b/test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BoundsTest.java
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ public class BoundsTest {
> };
> private static final String[] Single_supers = {
> "java.lang.Object",
> - "java.util.Collection"
> + "java.util.SequencedCollection"
> };
@sadayapalam
> Please include the following fix for the langtools test "failures":
OK, applying these patches lets the tests pass. I can include them in this PR.
The patch in TestJavacTaskScanner.java adjusts the expected number of elements
from 158 to 170, but I note that the error message in the test failure is
java.lang.Error: #parseTypeElements higher than expected; expected 158;
found: 180
The test still passes with the expected value of 170, as the criterion seems to
be that the actual number be within 10% of the expected number. Since the
actual number is 180, though, would it be better to use 180?
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#issuecomment-1307795998
