-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Mark,
On 10/5/18 06:22, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 05/10/18 10:42, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:40 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 04/10/18 22:07, isa...@apache.org wrote: >>>> Author: isapir Date: Thu Oct 4 21:07:54 2018 New Revision: >>>> 1842849 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1842849&view=rev Log: >>>> System.load() expects absolute path. >>> >>> Remember to consider whether or not any changes you make to >>> trunk should be back-ported to 8.5.x and 7.0.x. Generally, >>> changes are back-ported unless they require changing a public >>> API (as defined in RELEASE-NOTES) or are considering likely to >>> cause a regression. >>> >>> <snip/> >>> >>>> Modified: >>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/openssl/TestOpenSSLConf .java >>>> >>> URL: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/uti l/net/openssl/TestOpenSSLConf.java?rev=1842849&r1=1842848&r2=1842849&vie w=diff >>>> >>> >>> ======================================================================== ====== >>>> --- >>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/openssl/TestOpenSSLConf .java >>> >>> (original) >>>> +++ >>> tomcat/trunk/test/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/openssl/TestOpenSSLConf .java >>> >>> Thu Oct 4 21:07:54 2018 >>>> @@ -87,7 +87,11 @@ public class TestOpenSSLConf extends Tom >>>> >>>> @Test public void testOpenSSLConfCmdCipher() throws Exception >>>> { - log.info("Found OpenSSL version 0x" + >>> Integer.toHexString(OPENSSL_VERSION)); >>>> + if (TesterSupport.isOpensslAvailable()) + >>>> log.info("Found OpenSSL version 0x" + >>> Integer.toHexString(OPENSSL_VERSION)); >>>> + else + log.warn("OpenSSL not found: " + >>> TesterSupport.OPENSSL_ERROR); >>>> + >>> >>> The Tomcat style is to always use { and } even for one line for >>> clarity. >>> >>> Due to the age of the code base, there are a mix of styles. >>> Generally, we try and move code towards the currently accepted >>> style as we change it. >>> >> >> +1 a lack of { } is too big a possible bug source to ignore. > > I just tried enabling the CheckStyle test for this. There were > just under three thousand errors. > > I'm wondering if it is worth going through the code base fixing > these. I'm nearly -1 on this, mostly because it will make back-porting stuff a total PITA. Definitely opportunistically "upgrade" code we find here and there, but I don't think it's worth taking a day or two to add missing explicit blocks everywhere. > On a related topic, I did notice several instance of the > following: > > if (a == b) ... if (a == c) ... if (a == d) ... > > that could be more efficiently written as: > > if (a == b) { ... } else if (a == c) { ... } else if (a == d) { > ... } That would be nice. Sounds like a BZ issue that could have a "beginner" keyword attached. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/ iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAlu3sZoACgkQHPApP6U8 pFhg+BAAo5MYG+MA5ZXjEnhBg7/dMD2lyH7IhAXsL6DzTCtqd376JU12ZHChSfrT cokAiDQT1TsNH4MsqleCu3kmrS9LuCKMMbVKNjVrR66CQKHnc6C/7hnw2blRLNUt 2NlOoelkT0biWWs81GmAOtMcESRFGlhKmypqtWbB4xeMFR8pPBAKu5MVCsfQRIX8 PleifXJO+6j7mTFEHHjbuc0/MuJT4taY/AErBoYCtqRwSJE7KZMqectAzBQNA6n/ ehAI7EDkGEupIvPxiMIh4I596tEwTiRnTZMX2CBpBj+YHHhXDUlRKyKu3R53964E FSIPQqqmmfFoWBV3L5swaULkgi8/HxF2OAFeUqHQ7nSWURF32JgA4qZGU2d7Ot5P o6EP2weM+CraFsH5lSncrY7EMJ7QUmtu5CsWOyTqLrw5A/KjCsscqz8RaY05b/AU tKEDV6U6eQR0ka8Myn5faKDxXQMdkw9DdrydN1Wz8o0oMnKYaWXqjzKt6Ey8LpZm sE4tw69Ji2D7Mu4WcSf+rqFCW9QaxEzDsu7Xv5CBMF9mRqjKC8bNIHk9wIyYn2JQ GYULNRNMpKSKpYXvO0o1UPiMMTHYB0FpONH+jKb5Qlr6SRL18MjT8xY8R4A2vXGt kcCHcFvWBUG87cZvmfzkSIkaFzocgqTRdW5Lmi4hSWN0pJCq7+Y= =trg2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
