Skip to content
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

8282081: java.time.DateTimeFormatter: wrong definition of symbol F #7640

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

naotoj
Copy link
Member

@naotoj naotoj commented Feb 28, 2022

Fixing the definition and implementation of the pattern symbol F. Although it is an incompatible change, I believe it is worth the fix. For that, a CSR has been drafted.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed
  • Change requires a CSR request to be approved

Issues

  • JDK-8282081: java.time.DateTimeFormatter: wrong definition of symbol F
  • JDK-8282377: java.time.DateTimeFormatter: wrong definition of symbol F (CSR)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7640/head:pull/7640
$ git checkout pull/7640

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/7640
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7640/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 7640

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 7640

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7640.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 28, 2022

👋 Welcome back naoto! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Feb 28, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 28, 2022

@naotoj The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • core-libs
  • i18n

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org i18n i18n-dev@openjdk.org csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration labels Feb 28, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Feb 28, 2022

Webrevs

@JoeWang-Java
Copy link
Member

JoeWang-Java commented Mar 1, 2022

Was the following assessment in the bug report correct?
"the symbol F in java.time.DateTimeFormatter is no use in any pattern. It just may cause an exception."

If true, then it seems the compatibility risk would be low since pattern letter "F" as is currently defined is of no use.

Also, the CSR summary needs to be a summary of the action to be taken, that is, changing the pattern definition. The current statement is similar to the problem statement.

@naotoj
Copy link
Member Author

naotoj commented Mar 1, 2022

Was the following assessment in the bug report correct? "the symbol F in java.time.DateTimeFormatter is no use in any pattern. It just may cause an exception."

No, not correct. It is currently incorrectly tied with the ChronoField.ALIGNED_DAY_OF_WEEK_IN_MONTH field, and works as such.

If true, then it seems the compatibility risk would be low since pattern letter "F" as is currently defined is of no use.

Thus, the risk should remain medium.

Also, the CSR summary needs to be a summary of the action to be taken, that is, changing the pattern definition. The current statement is similar to the problem statement.

Thanks, modified.

Copy link
Contributor

@jodastephen jodastephen left a comment

Although there is incompatibility, I believe a fix is the correct choice. The issue arose because of the poor description of the field in LDML.

Copy link
Contributor

@LanceAndersen LanceAndersen left a comment

I think the change makes sense.

Are there any TCK tests that need to be modified or Added? I made a very quick scan of the open/test/jdk/java/time/tck/java/time/ dirs and did not see any tests but of course I could have missed it

@naotoj
Copy link
Member Author

naotoj commented Mar 1, 2022

Are there any TCK tests that need to be modified or Added? I made a very quick scan of the open/test/jdk/java/time/tck/java/time/ dirs and did not see any tests but of course I could have missed it

There are test cases in the TCK directory that only verify its validity, such as number of digits. Those tests pass with this fix.

@openjdk openjdk bot removed the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Mar 4, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 4, 2022

@naotoj 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:

8282081: java.time.DateTimeFormatter: wrong definition of symbol F

Reviewed-by: joehw, scolebourne, lancea, rriggs

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 50 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • b629782: 8279886: C1: Turn off SelectivePhiFunctions in presence of irreducible loops
  • 7e1c67d: 8282608: RawNativeLibraryImpl can't be passed to NativeLibraries::findEntry0
  • 8478173: 8282583: Update BCEL md to include the copyright notice
  • fb6b929: 8277474: jarsigner does not check if algorithm parameters are disabled
  • 1581e3f: 8282402: Create a regression test for JDK-4666101
  • 268fa69: 8282511: Use fixed certificate validation date in SSLExampleCert template
  • c777bb3: 8282619: G1: Fix indentation in G1CollectedHeap::mark_evac_failure_object
  • 080baff: 8282483: Ensure that Utils.getAllInterfaces returns unique instances
  • 57020fd: 8282582: Unused methods in Utils
  • 5c187e3: 8282593: JDK-8281472 breaks 32-bit builds and gtests
  • ... and 40 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/9d9618a3dd29cb9328a7275375e04eca2af20a93...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Mar 4, 2022
@naotoj
Copy link
Member Author

naotoj commented Mar 4, 2022

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 4, 2022

Going to push as commit 733c790.
Since your change was applied there have been 56 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • f9f9c0a: 8252769: Warn in configure if git config autocrlf has invalid value
  • 603050b: 8282661: [BACKOUT] ByteBufferTest.java: replace endless recursion with RuntimeException in void ck(double x, double y)
  • 5247153: 8282615: G1: Fix some includes
  • a584c90: 8282573: ByteBufferTest.java: replace endless recursion with RuntimeException in void ck(double x, double y)
  • d5e8e52: 8282532: Allow explicitly setting build platform alongside --openjdk-target
  • b383780: 8282343: Create a regression test for JDK-4518432
  • b629782: 8279886: C1: Turn off SelectivePhiFunctions in presence of irreducible loops
  • 7e1c67d: 8282608: RawNativeLibraryImpl can't be passed to NativeLibraries::findEntry0
  • 8478173: 8282583: Update BCEL md to include the copyright notice
  • fb6b929: 8277474: jarsigner does not check if algorithm parameters are disabled
  • ... and 46 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/9d9618a3dd29cb9328a7275375e04eca2af20a93...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Mar 4, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Mar 4, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Mar 4, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 4, 2022

@naotoj Pushed as commit 733c790.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org i18n i18n-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
5 participants