Amy, thanks. I'm not sure which practices are suggested. By searching the existing tests, I found lots of test with 2+ @modules, so I chose to add another @modules. Personally, both ways look clear and transparent for me. Thanks, Felix On 2016/4/11 12:49, Amy Lu wrote:

On 4/11/16 11:47 AM, Felix Yang wrote:

...

Hi there, please review the following bug fix. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153928 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xiaofeya/8153928/webrev.00/

You might want to do some cleanup to avoid using two @modules tags?

BTW. I'm not openjdk reviewer, please wait for reviewer's feedback.

Thanks, Amy

...

After changes in JDK-8153737 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153737>, it introduced new dependency of java.base/jdk.internal.misc in test/lib/share/classes/jdk/test/lib/Utils.java. This leads to two test compilation failures. See changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/rev/1d992540870f

Thanks, Felix

Hi Alan and Amy, thanks for figuring this out. Updated to suggested practice. New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xiaofeya/8153928/webrev.01/ Felix On 2016/4/11 14:46, Alan Bateman wrote:

On 11/04/2016 06:04, Felix Yang wrote:

...

Amy, thanks. I'm not sure which practices are suggested. By searching the existing tests, I found lots of test with 2+ @modules, so I chose to add another @modules. Personally, both ways look clear and transparent for me. We've tried to use one @modules per test but there are inconsistencies. I think some of those inconsistencies arose when patches were brought into jdk9/dev early and then subsequently merged. At some point we should do a pass over the existing usages to get them consistent.

-Alan

On 4/11/16 3:01 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:

On 11/04/2016 07:57, Felix Yang wrote:

...

Hi Alan and Amy, thanks for figuring this out. Updated to suggested practice.

New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xiaofeya/8153928/webrev.01/ This looks okay.

-Alan

Felix, I'll sponsor this for you. Thanks, Amy