On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:53:36 GMT, Justin Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This PR addresses a rounding error for >> `CompactNumberFormat.format(BigDecimal)`, which occurs when the maximum >> fraction digits value is greater than the minimum fraction digits value. >> >> For example, given a format with 0 minimum fraction digits and 2 maximum >> fraction digits and a `BigDecimal` of 21_534_567.20, the following behavior >> occurs. >> >> - `21_534_567.20` is first scaled to `21_534_567` to determine which compact >> divisor should be used >> - The millions pattern is selected, and the following division occurs -> >> `21_534_567` / `1_000_000`. During the division operation, the minimum >> fraction digits is inherited as the scale and applied to the resulting >> quotient which produces 22. >> >> Instead, the division should occur exactly, and `21_534_567` / `1_000_000` >> should produce `21.534567` which is then later rounded with the 2 maximum >> fraction digits to a value of `"21.53M"`. >> >> While the filed regression points out the BD path, this also occurs for the >> BI formatting path when the underlying value is greater than what a `long` >> supports and whose division result would produce a fraction. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Address negative cases under CEILING/FLOOR rounding Looks fine src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/CompactNumberFormat.java line 2564: > 2562: // Ensure that sign is taken into account, otherwise rounding > under CEILING/FLOOR > 2563: // would be incorrect when the dividend is negative. > 2564: BigDecimal signedDividend = isNegative ? > BigDecimal.valueOf(number).negate() : BigDecimal.valueOf(number); Since `number` is a double, `BigDecimal.valueOf(isNegative ? -number : number)` may be simpler ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32933#pullrequestreview-5296001079 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32933#discussion_r4086637825
