12 RFR (S): 8216532: tools/launcher/Test7029048.java fails (Solaris)

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Rather than naming the enum for the test cases as "CASE", more 
conventional naming would be "TestCase" or "Case" for the type itself.

-Joe

On 1/16/2019 9:30 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216532
> Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8216532/
>
> The fix for 8210669 [1] enabled some tests to run that had not been
> running, and perhaps had never run.
>
> Amongst these tests was tools/launcher/Test7029048.java, which is meant
> to ensure that the Java launcher defends itself against interfering
> settings of the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable, as implemented in
> the fix for 7029048 [2].
>
> It took me quite a while to understand exactly what this test was doing,
> but in the end the root cause was that the test could not distinguish
> between an LD_LIBRARY_PATH value that’s empty from one that contains
> just a single path.  This is important on Solaris, where the test also
> checks that setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 does not interfere with the
> launcher.  In this context the environment variable can contain either
> no path or just one path, depending upon which case is being tested.
>
> I fixed this accounting problem and, while I was at it, made a few other
> changes to clarify the test for future maintainers.
>
> In a cruel twist of fate, it turns out that the behavior implemented for
> 7029048, and verified by this test, is incorrect.  On Solaris, if you
> set LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 then that completely overrides any setting of
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH.  The launcher tries to defend itself against a setting
> of LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but that will have no
> effect -- it should really set LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64.  I’ve filed 8217216
> [3] to record this.
>
> Passes tiers 1-4 on {linux,macosx,windows}-x64 and solaris-sparcv9.
>
> Thanks,
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210669
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7029048
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217216