[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-99?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16843419#comment-16843419
]
Gilles commented on NUMBERS-99:
-------------------------------
Thanks for the contribution.
However, with new contributions, we try to improve readability; a.o. things,
unit test methods should strive to focus on single checks. I.e. if several
conditions must be checked for, say, the "add" method, multiple test methods
should be defined: {{testAdd1()}}, {{testAdd2()}}, ...
And those where an exception is expected to be thrown should be annotated:
{code:java}
@Test(expected=SomeException.class)
{code}
rather than having an explicit {{catch}} in the test method.
> Fraction.add(int) and Fraction.subtract(int) ignore risk of integer overflow
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NUMBERS-99
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-99
> Project: Commons Numbers
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: fraction
> Reporter: Heinrich Bohne
> Priority: Minor
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The methods {{add(int)}} and {{subtract(int)}} in the class
> {{org.apache.commons.numbers.fraction.Fraction}} do not take into account the
> risk of an integer overflow. For example, (2^31^ - 1)/2 + 1 = (2^31^ +
> 1)/2, so the numerator overflows an {{int}}, but when calculated with
> {{Fraction.add(int)}}, the method still returns normally.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
