On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 12:06:23 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <dfu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I'm guessing that this test passes for you locally. If so, then we might >> need some additional investigation here as to why it passes (given the exact >> opposite assertion of what the test was previously asserting). >> >> I see that the original test was using lower case response header in the >> server handler and on the client side the test was reading a upper case >> response header. In this updated version, we use the upper case header >> consistently in both the handler and the client. You might want to check the >> original issue https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8263899 to see if the >> case of the header was playing a role in this test. > > firstValue(name) returns an Optional, so we were just testing that the > Optional was not empty :-). > Now we're additionally checking that the value is the empty string. That explains it :) The method chaining and the same name `isEmpty()` in the original test didn't help me notice that it was checking an `Optional`. Thank you Daniel. What Volkan has in the updated version looks fine then. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24542#discussion_r2035241063
