RFR: 8324723: GHA: Upgrade some actions to avoid deprecated Node 16 [v2]

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 19:33:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Current GHA runs produce lots of warnings:
>> 
>> Node.js 16 actions are deprecated. Please update the following actions to use Node.js 20: actions/cache at v3, actions/download-artifact at v3, actions/upload-artifact at v3. For more information see: https://github.blog/changelog/2023-09-22-github-actions-transitioning-from-node-16-to-node-20/.
>> 
>> We can upgrade to new actions to get the Node20.
>> 
>> Release/migration notes:
>> https://github.com/actions/cache#whats-new
>> https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact/blob/main/docs/MIGRATION.md
>> https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/blob/main/docs/MIGRATION.md
>> https://github.com/actions/github-script#breaking-changes
>> 
>> There is also msys2/setup-msys2, which was pinned by [JDK-8310259](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259). We need at least 2.21.0 to get Node 20:
>> https://github.com/msys2/setup-msys2/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md. I think we can unpin msys2 at this point.
>> 
>> I don't think any of the migration problems outlined in those notes apply to our workflows.
>> 
>> Additional testing:
>>  - [x] 3x GHA with cleaned caches
>>  - [x]  3x GHA with populated caches (default)
>
> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Also update github-script

> [We pinned it](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259) because there were weird failures in jtreg builds on Windows due to msys2 bug. This is why I tested GHA multiple times, every time clearing the caches to trigger jtreg rebuild. msys2 had fixed lots of possibly related path conversion bugs recently, but it is really hard to pin-point what went into latest release. Example of msys2 fix: [msys2/MSYS2-packages#4200](https://github.com/msys2/MSYS2-packages/pull/4200) -- done in Nov 2023, so the current release hopefully has all these.

Ah-ha! Here we go. This PR proposes updating to `v2.22.0` (Update base distribution to 20240113). So the easy test for the hypothesis that November fixes got there is trying with `v2.21.0` (Update base distribution to 20231026). Tried it right now, and Windows jtreg build [immediately failed](https://github.com/shipilev/jdk/actions/runs/7694685053/job/20965966992):


/bin/cp /d/a/jdk/jdk/jtreg/src/build/deps/jtharness/build/binaries/lib/javatest.jar D:/a/jdk/jdk/jtreg/src/build/images/jtreg/lib/javatest.jar
CLASSPATH="D:/a/jdk/jdk/jtreg/src/build/classes;D:/a/jdk/jdk/jtreg/src/build/deps/jtharness/build/binaries/lib/javatest.jar;" \
    C:/hostedtoolcache/windows/Java_Temurin-Hotspot_jdk/17.0.10-7/x64/bin/javac --release 11 -Xlint:all,-options,-deprecation -Werror \
	-d D:/a/jdk/jdk/jtreg/src/build/classes \
	-encoding ASCII \
	../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/Diff.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/DiffReader.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/Fault.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/Help.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/HTMLReporter.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/HTMLWriter.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/Main.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/MultiMap.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/Reporter.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/ReportReader.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/SimpleReporter.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/StandardDiff.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/StatusComparator.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/SuperDiff.java ../src/share/classes/com/sun/javatest/diff/WorkDirectoryReader.java
/bin/sh: line 1: C:/hostedtoolcache/windows/Java_Temurin-Hotspot_jdk/17.0.10-7/x64/bin/javac: Bad address
make: *** [jtdiff.gmk:36: D:/a/jdk/jdk/jtreg/src/build/classes.com.sun.javatest.diff.ok] Error 126


This gives me even more confidence in msys2 unpinning :)

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17572#issuecomment-1914418168