If this is to be undone after the correct zip fix, why not add the
@ignore for now ?
and enable this when 8015666 is fixed correctly.
Kumar
This is fine to be a workaround for the test case for now. It probably
will need to be
undo-ed after the propose change for #8015666 get integrated.
Yes, I think that this is the correct approach.
-- Jon
On 06/27/2013 09:43 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
If this is to be undone after the correct zip fix, why not add the
@ignore for now ?
and enable this when 8015666 is fixed correctly.
Kumar
This is fine to be a workaround for the test
Accidentally dropped core-libs-dev from the reply.
On 06/27/13 13:31, Eric McCorkle wrote:
I could easily replace the patch I have now with one that just marks the
test @ignore and commit it. Do we want to go ahead and approve that?
On 06/27/13 13:12, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Yes, I think
Ok. I will put it through shortly.
On 06/27/13 14:18, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Yes,
Per the latest conventions, the line should be of the form
@ignore BUGID: synopsis
where BUGID is the number for a currently open issue that justifies this
test being ignored.
-- Jon
On
That would be preferable to modifying the test, I think.
At this point, consider my proposed fix withdrawn, and someone should
push a change to add this test to ProblemList.txt in the immediate term.
On 06/25/13 15:56, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:45 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
The
Hello,
Please review this simple patch which updates regression test
langtools/tools/javac/T6725036.java to offset the time returned by
JavaFileObject.getLastModified() with the local time to UTC delta.
Please note that this patch is intended to address the test failures,
and that I will be
This is fine to be a workaround for the test case for now. It probably will
need to be
undo-ed after the propose change for #8015666 get integrated.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8015666/webrev/
The proposal for #8015666 is to keep the existing behavior of
ZipEntry.getTime()
to return a
Is this a capital-R review?
On 06/25/13 13:50, Xueming Shen wrote:
This is fine to be a workaround for the test case for now. It probably
will need to be
undo-ed after the propose change for #8015666 get integrated.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8015666/webrev/
The proposal for
It is intended to be an opinion. I would assume you would like a reviewer from
the langtool team to push the change, given the changset is for the lang repo.
You may want to update the check() method as well to low the granularity
to 2-second before comparing the equality. The timestamp from
The proposed change for 8015666 is supposed to stop this test failure. But as I
said
last time that it may take a while for it to get into the repo. I will start
the CCC process
shortly, if there is no objection.
-Sherman
On 06/25/2013 12:27 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
Does the fix for 8015666
On 06/25/2013 08:45 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
The proposed change for 8015666 is supposed to stop this test failure.
But as I said
last time that it may take a while for it to get into the repo. I will
start the CCC process
shortly, if there is no objection.
There is no problem here. If 8015666
Please do; this test has been failing for almost a month now.
On 06/25/13 15:45, Xueming Shen wrote:
The proposed change for 8015666 is supposed to stop this test failure.
But as I said
last time that it may take a while for it to get into the repo. I will
start the CCC process
shortly, if
12 matches
Mail list logo
