-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
8266250: WebSocketTest and WebSocketProxyTest call assertEquals(List<byte[]>, List<byte[]>) #3776
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
…byte[]>, List<byte[]>)
👋 Welcome back dfuchs! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
Webrevs
|
Which behavior is that? If I recall correctly, the test was written for TestNG 6.9.5, which provides a method to compare collections. |
Mailing list message from Daniel Fuchs on net-dev: On 28/04/2021 23:51, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Exactly - that API specification doesn't say whether elements The latest version of TestNG seems to have changed how elements -- daniel |
1 similar comment
Mailing list message from Daniel Fuchs on net-dev: On 28/04/2021 23:51, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Exactly - that API specification doesn't say whether elements The latest version of TestNG seems to have changed how elements -- daniel |
Fair enough. Since you are here, consider further improving diagnosability. The failed comparison should provide more info. |
@pavelrappo: done. |
var problem = actual.equals(expected) ? "match" : "differ"; | ||
return "%s and %s %s".formatted(actual, expected, problem); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would rename "problem" to more neutral "message" or "description". Ditto in the other file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
@dfuch This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 4 new commits pushed to the
Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
/integrate |
@dfuch Since your change was applied there have been 10 commits pushed to the
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. Pushed as commit 01415f3. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Please find here an almost trivial test fix that should improve diagnostic in case of failures.
It also avoids relying on an unspecified behavior of
Assert.assertEquals
.Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3776/head:pull/3776
$ git checkout pull/3776
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3776
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3776/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3776
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3776
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3776.diff