Change "7902090: Update JDK_Version to be more future-proof" breaks some jtreg tests

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Volker,

Thanks for the report.

1.9 is not an official version number, but neither is NPE the intended 
effect. I will check out the code to see the possibilities.

-- Jon


On 2/20/18 8:01 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi Johnathan,
>
> it seems that your change "7902090: Update JDK_Version to be more
> future-proof" breaks some jtreg tests. Specifically, all tests which
> set "-source 1.9 -target 1.9" for the compile step (e.g.
> test/jdk/java/lang/String/concat/ImplicitStringConcatArgCount.java
> ) will fail with a null pointer exception:
>
> ----------Stack trace:(9/649)----------
> java.lang.NullPointerException
>          at com.sun.javatest.regtest.exec.CompileAction.isModuleOptionsAllowed(CompileAction.java:525)
>          at com.sun.javatest.regtest.exec.CompileAction.getJavacCommandArgs(CompileAction.java:469)
>          at com.sun.javatest.regtest.exec.CompileAction.run(CompileAction.java:357)
>          at com.sun.javatest.regtest.exec.RegressionScript.run(RegressionScript.java:247)
>          at com.sun.javatest.Script.run(Script.java:241)
>          at com.sun.javatest.DefaultTestRunner.runTest(DefaultTestRunner.java:174)
>          at com.sun.javatest.DefaultTestRunner.access$100(DefaultTestRunner.java:43)
>          at com.sun.javatest.DefaultTestRunner$1.run(DefaultTestRunner.java:66)
> result: Not run. Test running...
>
> So the new behavior doesn't really seem to be more "future-proof" :)
>
> Do you plan to fix this in jtreg or do you want to change all the
> jtreg tests which use "1.9"  to use "9" instead? I personally think
> that at least as long as "javac" supports both notations, jtreg should
> support them as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Volker