RFR: 8343832: Enhance test summary with number of skipped tests [v6]

[Ivan Bereziuk]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:04:28 GMT, Ivan Bereziuk <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The output for Jtreg v7.5 was [enhanced](https://github.com/openjdk/jtreg/pull/217/files#diff-b6ab77bf651f1fd9a83c3ca0aab9cd24ae5c08cef41e6e257f7eaccc07c7c366R947) with [information about skipped tests](https://github.com/openjdk/jtreg/blob/master/src/share/doc/javatest/regtest/faq.md#what-do-all-those-numbers-in-the-test-results-line-mean).
>> 
>> Use the additional information in the "summary" block printed at the end of `make test` target.
>
> Ivan Bereziuk has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 10 additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8343832_enhance_test_summary
>  - SKIPPED is always zero for Microbenchark testing. Define SKIPPED in one go after branching.
>  - _SKIPPED was not defined for gtest and special tests. Treat disabled gtests as _SKIPPED
>  - adapt changes to the ancient awk on MacOS
>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8343832_enhance_test_summary
>  - indented the comment
>  - remove resorting zero-ing of $1_SKIPPED as preceding gawk always assigns the value
>  - lowercased Jtreg. fixed typos in the comment
>  - aggregated calculation for many categoires of skipped tests into one gawk block with regex
>  - 8343832: Enhance test summary with number of skipped tests

It should have been obvious to me that other test frameworks like **gtest** and **microbenchmarking** also use that same "run-test-report" target-routine to present results and so they also have to define the variable for the number of skipped tests.
IMO, it would make sense for **gtest** to count disabled test as SKIPPED in a final report.
For the rest of the test frameworks, the number of skipped tests will be set to 0.

Any objections?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22245#issuecomment-2577641143