RFR: 8239365: ProcessBuilder/Basic.java test modifications for AIX execution

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Adam,

ok, looks good.

I will sponsor it.  (Seeing Thomas's email).

Thanks, Roger


On 4/22/20 12:38 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> Hi Tom, Roger,
>
> No, I didn't see that. I'm not sure why.
>
> Sorry about that Roger. :)
>
> Roger's proposal seems a fair compromise.
>
> Here's a webrev for it: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8239365.2/webrev
>
> If this meets both of your approvals, could I ask for a volunteer to 
> sponsor and merge, please?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
> IBM Runtimes
>
>
> "Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote on 21/04/2020 18:29:23:
>
> > From: "Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>, Roger Riggs
> > <roger.riggs at oracle.com>
> > Date: 21/04/2020 18:29
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFR: 8239365: ProcessBuilder/Basic.java test
> > modifications for AIX execution
> > 
> > Hi Adam,
> > 
> > I do not have strong emotions, leave it up to you. But did you read
> > Rogers mail from 21.feb?
> > 
> > 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-February/064878.html 
>
> > 
> > Cheers, Thomas
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:32 PM Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com> 
> wrote:
> > Hi All, 
> >
> > As mentioned by Tom, a third opinion is sought on the aforementioned
> > minor test change.
> >
> > @Tom - I'd prefer to use the full version of the error messages to keep
> > things clear, though I would not object to using your abbreviated 
> version
> > if it means getting the change in.
> >
> > So long as it passes when it should pass, and fails only when it should
> > fail, clarity is a "would be nice", but ultimately a secondary 
> priority.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback. :)
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Adam Farley
> > IBM Runtimes
> >
> >
> > "Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote on 03/03/2020 10:52:10:
> >
> > > From: "Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> > > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > > Date: 03/03/2020 10:52
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFR: 8239365: ProcessBuilder/Basic.java test
> > > modifications for AIX execution
> > >
> > > This is why I always was against handing up the result of strerror
> > > to the user :) The same problem we would have when running with
> > > different locales. We should have a platform agnostic string table
> > > in the java lib for that purpose...
> > >
> > > As for the test, looks good, but I personally would shorten the AIX
> > > patterns a bit or maybe try to find a short form fitting all
> > > platforms (e.g. "[Pp]ermission").
> > >
> > > But thats just idle bikeshedding, lets see what others think.
> > >
> > > Cheers Thomas
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:43 AM Adam Farley8 
> <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Reviews and sponsor requested for a small test change.
> > >
> > > Short version: When an AIX machine has the file set 
> "bos.msg.en_US.rte",
> > > the error messages are not in a form that the test expects, causing
> > > failure.
> > >
> > > The simplest option appears to be adding the second potential form 
> of the
> > > message into the regex (see webrev).
> > >
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8239365.1/webrev/
> > >
> > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239365
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Adam Farley
> > > IBM Runtimes
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
> PO6 3AU
> >
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
> PO6 3AU
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU