On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 20:43:20 GMT, Naoto Sato <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fixing the equals/hashCode contract in the SimpleTimeZone class. The current
>> implementation includes DST rule fields in hash code computation even for
>> zones that do not observe DST, while equals() always considers them. Also
>> correcting the example code in the class description, where it used
>> 20-year-old obsolete "America/Los_Angeles" rule.
>
> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Address review comments
test/jdk/java/util/TimeZone/SimpleTimeZoneEqualsHashCodeTest.java line 59:
> 57: assertNotEquals(STZ_WITH_DST, stz);
> 58: // from the contract point, hash codes may be the same
> 59: assertNotEquals(STZ_WITH_DST.hashCode(), stz.hashCode());
Like you said, from `!a.equals(b)` it does not follow that `a.hashCode() !=
b.hashCode()`. Unless you want hash code to specifically have this additional
property, I'd remove this assertion.
test/jdk/java/util/TimeZone/SimpleTimeZoneEqualsHashCodeTest.java line 63:
> 61:
> 62: @Test
> 63: void withOutDSTTest() {
Nit, really:
Suggestion:
void withoutDSTTest() {
test/jdk/java/util/TimeZone/SimpleTimeZoneEqualsHashCodeTest.java line 76:
> 74: assertTrue(stz.useDaylightTime());
> 75: assertNotEquals(STZ_WITHOUT_DST, stz);
> 76: assertNotEquals(STZ_WITHOUT_DST.hashCode(), stz.hashCode());
Ditto on equals-hashCode contract.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27660#discussion_r2414592801
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27660#discussion_r2414583906
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27660#discussion_r2414599801
