I agree. I don't think it's useful to expose getCurrent to the user. That's more runner related.
Regards JB Le 12 mars 2018 à 11:06, à 11:06, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit: >I agree Thomas but I kind of read it as "yes we can drop that >constraint". >If not we should also check we are used in a thread safe context etc >which >will likely never hit the user sdk API so why doing that case a >particular >case? Am I missing something? > > >Romain Manni-Bucau >@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog ><https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog ><http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github ><https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book ><https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > >2018-03-12 17:04 GMT+01:00 Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com>: > >> If a call to `getCurrentWhatever` happens after `start` or `advance` >has >> returned false, it's a bug in the runner, but the reader needs to be >able >> to fail, otherwise you'll get a synthetic element that doesn't really >> exist. If a reader throws `NoSuchElementException` after the most >recent >> call returned true, the reader isn't conforming to spec. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:00 AM Romain Manni-Bucau ><rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> why reader#getCurrent* can throw NoSuchElementException, >>> my understanding is that the runner will guarantee that start or >advance >>> was called and returned true when calling getCurrent so this is a >case >>> which shouldn't happen, no? >>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >>> ><https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >>> >>
