On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:04 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> you might consider using
> a little combinatorial code to generate bad and good class
> names
P.S. To motivate this suggestion a bit more: I found no
problem with your manually-written test vectors of bad
and good names, but I also found it diffi
Nice work. A couple of small points:
A qualified class name is one that has a package prefix.
So it is surprising that verifyUnqualifiedClassName allows
a package prefix. Maybe it needs a different name.
The testing looks adequate, but you might consider using
a little combinatorial code to gen
+1 from me.
On 1/7/2019 1:17 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
I have updated the webrev after additional feedback from the TCK
tester please check last version at [1]
Thanks,
Vicente
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8215510/webrev.01
On 1/3/19 12:21 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
Please review t
I have updated the webrev after additional feedback from the TCK tester
please check last version at [1]
Thanks,
Vicente
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8215510/webrev.01
On 1/3/19 12:21 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
Please review the fix for bug [1] at [2]. Basically the constants API
i
Please review the fix for bug [1] at [2]. Basically the constants API
introduced as part of JEP-334 [3] were accepting descriptors and class
names not allowed by the spec. This implementation fixes several issues
found by TCK tests on JEP-334,
Thanks,
Vicente
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net
