[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-99?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16843542#comment-16843542
]
Gilles commented on NUMBERS-99:
-------------------------------
bq. code in the test class was already not following the guidelines you
mentioned here, and should therefore be rewritten?
Yes.
Refactoring primarily focused on making modules; but tests were ported with
minimal changes.
bq. I tried to follow the style of the other tests
Sure, but this class is quite old (in "Commons Math"); and the standard has
risen ;-). Better follow [this test
class|https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-numbers.git;a=blob;f=commons-numbers-quaternion/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/numbers/quaternion/QuaternionTest.java],
for example.
> 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)
