FW: RFR(S): [testbug] add @requires vm.cds to CDS tests in jdk test suite

[Ioi Lam]

These changes look good to me.

Thanks

- Ioi


On 8/28/17 10:58 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could I please get a review on core-libs-dev?
>
> Thanks,
>    Goetz.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 29. August 2017 00:33
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; serviceability-dev (serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net) <serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Cc: mikhailo <mikhailo.seledtsov at oracle.com>
> Subject: Re: RFR(S): [testbug] add @requires vm.cds to CDS tests in jdk test suite
>
> Hi Goetz,
>
> On 28/08/2017 5:57 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> thanks for looking at my change!
>>
>>> Should JDK-8185436 have made the changes to TEST.ROOT? I don't
>>> understand all the changes that have been added there. Did JDK-8185436
>>> make VMProps.java dependent on WhitBox API but not provide a means to
>>> actually build VMProps properly??
>> 8185436 did the changes for the hotspot tests. With this change I want to
>> exclude tests in the jdk test suite. When I did 8185436 there was no need
>> to add these lines in the jdk test suite (as now I will not add it in jaxp/test etc.)
>> because the @requires in the jdk/test suite did not yet use anything from
>> VMProps.java.
>>
>> When I did 8185436 I was asked by Mikhailo Seledtsov to use the @requires functionality.
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-July/024072.html
>>
>> As I understand, the three lines I added to TEST.ROOT, which are just copied from
>> hotspot/test/TEST.ROOT, tell jtreg how to compile VMProps.java which is needed
>> to evaluate the @requires statements.
> Thanks, now I see how this hangs together. It seems very odd to me to
> have a top-repo VMProps.java, but then the build instructions for it
> need to go into the local repo TEST.ROOT file. Oh well I suppose that
> will all change with the consolidated repo. :)
>
>>> I think the TEST.ROOT change may need wider review than serviceability-dev.
>> Where should I post it to?
> Perhaps core-libs-dev, just so folk there are aware of the change.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Best regards,
>>     Goetz.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>     Goetz.
>>>>