On 09/11/2008, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It looks like this class has been like this since the initial contribution > [1].
Which implies it should not stop us declaring M8 - but any idea why it has started failing for you now? Regards, Tim > > [1] > http://svn.eu.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/awt/src/main/java/common/java/awt/GridBagLayout.java?view=log > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm seeing an test error in 'awt'. >> >> <testcase classname="java.awt.GridBagLayoutRTest" >> name="testAddLayoutComponent" time="0.0"> >> <error message="AddLayoutComponent: attempt to add null component" >> type="java.lang.AssertionError">java.lang.AssertionError: >> AddLayoutComponent: attempt to add null component >> at java.awt.GridBagLayout.addLayoutComponent(GridBagLayout.java:94) >> at >> java.awt.GridBagLayoutRTest.testAddLayoutComponent(GridBagLayoutRTest.java:105) >> at java.lang.reflect.VMReflection.invokeMethod(VMReflection.java) >> >> >> I'm not exactly sure what the test is supposed to be doing, but I'm >> guessing it is testing for some sort of null/illegal parameter. The >> interesting thing or actual issue is that the code check the parameter >> for null via an assert. >> >> // awt.7F=AddLayoutComponent: attempt to add null component >> assert comp != null : Messages.getString("awt.7F"); >> //$NON-NLS-1$ >> >> At some point, this test wouldn't have been failing because asserts >> weren't enabled, but now they are and an assertion is being thrown. >> I'm going to do some digging to figure out what the correct behavior >> should be and maybe see about getting this fix into M8. >> >> The important thing though is that we need to understand the >> appropriate way to use asserts and this isn't one of them. An >> assertion SHOULD never fail. If an assertion fails, that should >> indicate a programming error within the code; in this case, a Harmony >> programming error. Indicating a consumer programming error should be >> done via runtime exceptions. >> >> -Nathan >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> chunrong lai wrote: >>>> I am bothly OK with waiting results of the reliability testing or >>>> voting >>>> with current testing status (to stick to the schedule). >>> >>> Quality is more important than dates -- so I favor delaying the vote >>> until the testing is complete and any issues addressed. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sian January >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry, that was an assumption on my part because it's quite late by >>>>> CST. >>>>> >>>>> Shall we aim for Monday, or are people quite keen to stick to the >>>>> schedule? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2008/11/7 Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> > Sian January wrote: >>>>>>> Great - thanks Chunrong. In that case I think we should leave the >>>>>>> vote until next week as there is testing still ongoing. >>>>>> Why next week? Will it really take that long for the testing to be >>>>>> completed Chunrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2008/11/7 chunrong lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>>>> I will upload the snapshot testing result page soon. >>>>>>>> The reliability testing has not been finished. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Sian January < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>>>>>>> Are there any objections to starting a vote for M8 later today? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
