On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 23:58:21 GMT, Justin Lu <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review this PR which prevents an `AIOOBE` from leaking out when > `java.util.Calendar.Builder` is used to build a Japanese calendar with an era > value too large. > > Note that we don't check under `BEFORE_MEIJI`/0 as historically Japanese > calendar ignores negative values during normalization. See > `JapaneseImperialCalendar` L2018: `date.setEra(era > 0 ? eras[era] : null);`. > > We also check against `eras.length` over `REIWA`/5 due to the possibility of > additional eras via the property override. (Which ensures > `SupplementalJapaneseEraTestRun.java` passes, which also tests against > building (and succeeding) with an era value of 6. Looks good to me. I would expect a test case with `jdk.calendar.japanese.supplemental.era` defined with something, and 7 would throw an IAE. src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/JapaneseImperialCalendar.java line 1862: > 1860: // BEFORE_MEIJI to be ignored during normalization > 1861: // We check against eras.length over Reiwa ERA due to > possibility > 1862: // of additional eras via > "jdk.calendar.japanese.supplemental.era" The possibility is not only that emergency property, but by design Japanese calendar eras increase when the current emperor abdicates. ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23789#pullrequestreview-2645256501 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23789#discussion_r1972020190
