Review request for JDK-8252124: Restore Dynalink tests

[Attila Szegedi]

Im happy to update the copyright years before merging my changes. I’ll not put up a separate webrev for that though, if that’s okay.

Attila.

> On 2020. Aug 21., at 07:32, Sundararajan Athijegannathan <sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Minor comment: not sure if you need to update copyright year on tests - 
> especially because there have been changes like package removal (flat).
> 
> -Sundar
> 
> 
>> On 2020. Aug 20., at 22:20, Attila Szegedi <szegedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> long time since I actively popped up here. I’m taking some time to maintain Dynalink, eyeing Java 16 for the changes. Since the nashorn-dev list is (presumably? I haven’t bother checking) defunct, I asked around and Sundar suggested core-libs-dev is the right list to post review requests, so here I am.
>> 
>> I plan to do the maintenance in three small stages, and this is the first one. The stages are:
>> - restore some Dynalink tests (they were thrown out with Nashorn)
>> - modernize/lint the Dynalink codebase (it was written for Java 7 originally for… reasons, and by now it could have diamonds, lambdas and so on)
>> - add support for records (the real end goal here.)
>> 
>> As stage 1, please review JDK-8252124 "Restore Dynalink tests" at <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8252124/webrev.jdk16/index.html> for <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252124>. 
>> 
>> It restores those Dynalink tests that are not dependent on Nashorn, so I again have a bit of a coverage as I work on it. They were taken from  jdk14/test/nashorn/src/jdk/dynalink and moved into jdk/test/jdk/jdk/dynalink as proper jtreg-run tests. I flattened the package hierarchy into just the unnamed package (which seems to be the usual way of writing tests in the neighboring directories.) I added the total of 8 test classes to the “jdk_other” test group, it seemed the appropriate group.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  Attila.
>> 
>