-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.3k
8369184: SimpleTimeZone equals() Returns True for Unequal Instances with Different hashCode Values #27660
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
Open
naotoj
wants to merge
3
commits into
openjdk:master
Choose a base branch
from
naotoj:JDK-8369184-SimpleTimeZone-hashCode
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
8369184: SimpleTimeZone equals() Returns True for Unequal Instances with Different hashCode Values #27660
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
78 changes: 78 additions & 0 deletions
78
test/jdk/java/util/TimeZone/SimpleTimeZoneHashCodeTest.java
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ | ||
/* | ||
* Copyright (c) 2025, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. | ||
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. | ||
* | ||
* This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it | ||
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as | ||
* published by the Free Software Foundation. | ||
* | ||
* This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT | ||
* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or | ||
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License | ||
* version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that | ||
* accompanied this code). | ||
* | ||
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version | ||
* 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, | ||
* Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. | ||
* | ||
* Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA | ||
* or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any | ||
* questions. | ||
*/ | ||
|
||
/* | ||
* @test | ||
* @bug 8369184 | ||
* @summary Checks if equals()/hashCode() of SimpleTimeZone works correctly | ||
* @run junit SimpleTimeZoneHashCodeTest | ||
*/ | ||
|
||
import java.util.SimpleTimeZone; | ||
import static java.util.Calendar.MARCH; | ||
import static java.util.Calendar.NOVEMBER; | ||
import static java.util.Calendar.SUNDAY; | ||
|
||
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test; | ||
|
||
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals; | ||
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotEquals; | ||
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertTrue; | ||
|
||
public class SimpleTimeZoneHashCodeTest { | ||
private static final SimpleTimeZone STZ_WITH_DST = | ||
new SimpleTimeZone(-288_000_000, "America/Los_Angeles", | ||
MARCH, 8, -SUNDAY, 7_200_000, | ||
NOVEMBER, 1, -SUNDAY, 7_200_000); | ||
private static final SimpleTimeZone STZ_WITHOUT_DST = | ||
new SimpleTimeZone(0, "foo"); | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
void withDSTTest() { | ||
var stz = (SimpleTimeZone)STZ_WITH_DST.clone(); | ||
assertEquals(STZ_WITH_DST, stz); | ||
assertEquals(STZ_WITH_DST.hashCode(), stz.hashCode()); | ||
|
||
stz.setEndRule(NOVEMBER, 8, -SUNDAY, 7_200_000); | ||
assertNotEquals(STZ_WITH_DST, stz); | ||
// from the contract point, hash codes may be the same | ||
assertNotEquals(STZ_WITH_DST.hashCode(), stz.hashCode()); | ||
} | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
void withOutDSTTest() { | ||
var stz = (SimpleTimeZone)STZ_WITHOUT_DST.clone(); | ||
|
||
// Only setting start rule. Still considered non-DST zone | ||
stz.setStartRule(MARCH, 8, -SUNDAY, 7_200_000); | ||
assertTrue(!stz.useDaylightTime()); | ||
assertEquals(STZ_WITHOUT_DST, stz); | ||
assertEquals(STZ_WITHOUT_DST.hashCode(), stz.hashCode()); | ||
|
||
// Setting end rule as well. Now it is considered DST zone | ||
stz.setEndRule(NOVEMBER, 8, -SUNDAY, 7_200_000); | ||
assertTrue(stz.useDaylightTime()); | ||
assertNotEquals(STZ_WITHOUT_DST, stz); | ||
assertNotEquals(STZ_WITHOUT_DST.hashCode(), stz.hashCode()); | ||
} | ||
} |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Seems reasonable to use
Objects.hash
here. Could save some lines if wanted?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.
Initially, I thought so, but decided to avoid extra array allocation/copy. But on second thought, the instances of this class would seldom be used as hash keys so not that performance critical. Either way is fine with me