Eclipse people has already committed a patch. Eugene, could you please check that it works as expected.
Thanks in advance. SY, Alexey 2007/5/16, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Agreed, I've filed a new bug agains Eclipse [1]. SY, Alexey [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=187223 2007/5/16, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Agreed. Should sort() be expected to behave like the RI for invalid > comparators? IMHO the answer is no. I think in this case a bug should be > raised with Eclipse to get the test fixed. > > Regards, > Oliver > > Aleksey Ignatenko wrote: > > The only fix for all related issues is to have the same implementation of > > such functionality as RI, as you understand it is unreachable goal unless > > you use RI classlib. So therefore I would say the right solution is to > > fix > > tests. > > > > Aleksey. > > > > > > On 5/16/07, Sergey Kuksenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> As we discussed the source of the errror is incorrect comparator. > >> However, I can suggest a patch to Arrays which makes Arrays.sort() > >> slightly > >> close to RI. > >> With the patch sorting algorithm is not changed, but > >> ArraysSortTest.javais > >> passed as on RI. > >> The patch is attached to the issue. > >> > >> On 5/16/07, Aleksey Ignatenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > From H-3339 comment: > >> > > >> > As the bug is in the tests then it is to be filed on Eclipse and this > >> JIRA > >> > closed with comment about Eclipse bug. > >> > Please, see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=176157 as > >> > example > >> > of Harmony related bug. > >> > > >> > BR, > >> > Aleksey Ignatenko. > >> > > >> > On 5/15/07, Sergey Kuksenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi All, > >> > > > >> > > As you wrote in the JIRA the reason of failure is incorrect > >> Comparator > >> > > which > >> > > is used in the test. > >> > > The Comparator violates the follwing rule from specification: > >> > > "The implementor must ensure that sgn(compare(x, y)) == > >> > > -sgn(compare(y, x))for all > >> > > x and y." > >> > > So I thing that It would be more correct to fix a comparator from > >> test. > >> > > > >> > > Some words about bug2bug compatibility. The fact that RI has > >> different > >> > > result on this comparator means nothing, because in case of > >> different > >> > > incorect comparator RI may give a different unpredictable > >> results. So > >> > > should > >> > > we check *all possible set of incorrect comparators* and move > >> exactly > >> in > >> > > same results as done by RI? > >> > > I think that it will mean that we should have completely the same > >> > > implementation of sorting. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 5/15/07, Eugene Ostrovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi all. > >> > > > > >> > > > Some of eclipse tests pass on RI but fail on harmony. See > >> > > > *HARMONY-3339<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3339> > >> > > > * . > >> > > > The tests are incorrect. They pass on RI due to difference in > >> > > > implementation > >> > > > of Arrays.sort() method. > >> > > > > >> > > > Shall we alter our Array.sort() implementation to be consistent > >> with > >> > RI > >> > > > ant > >> > > > to make these buggy tests pass? > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Eugene. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > --- > >> > > Sergey Kuksenko. > >> > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division. > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> --- > >> Sergey Kuksenko. > >> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division. > >> > > > > -- > Oliver Deakin > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > >
