[rfc][icedtea-web] Fix for PR1592 and jnlp applets/applications

[Andrew Azores]

On 12/11/2013 10:57 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 05:25 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The fix for PR1592 currently only affects plugin applets. The 
>> attached patch fixes this so that it
>> also enables the same functionality when launching from JNLP, as well 
>> as the fix for the reproducer
>> to expect this behaviour.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
>
> I forgot to mention - the tests will need a bit of update:
>
> You should verify various states of requested permissions.
> probably just:
>
> a)signed x unsigned x requesting permissions
> b)signed x unsigned x not requesting permissions
> a x signed doing something "forbidden" , unsigned doing something 
> "forbidden"
> b x signed doing something "forbidden" , unsigned doing something 
> "forbidden"
> a x signed doing something  not "forbidden" , unsigned doing something 
> not "forbidden"
> b x signed doing something not "forbidden" , unsigned doing something 
> not "forbidden"
>
> and the  ways when call is via second jar, and calls via reflection.
>
> It should be just multiplication of your lready existing usecases.
>
> Thanx,
>   j.
>
>

I'm not 100% on what you mean, but I've added new tests that I think 
might be doing somewhat what you want?

Also, I guess I'm doing something wrong or just missing something 
somewhere. I tried to pass parameters to the JNLP applets through 
ServerAccess.executeJavawsHeadless(List<String>, String, String[]), but 
I kept getting runtime java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.checkHeadless 
exceptions when I did this. I need to pass parameters to the applet to 
specify which specific test to run (which the plugin applet is doing), 
so unfortunately right now the JNLP tests are all specified by each 
having their own JNLP file, with only the <param> tag different :( is 
there a better way around this?

Next, right now every test case is using reflection for the various 
method calls between the JARs. Since there are two different reproducers 
built separately, is there a way I can use normal method calls for these 
tests? Maybe some special make flag voodoo I don't know about to add one 
of the reproducers to the other's compile classpath? Or might I need to 
convert this whole test into a custom reproducer with its own Makefile 
to achieve this? Even if I use a custom reproducer, might I not still 
run into the same problem I had before, with the signing information 
being different across a single package?

The "main" attached patch is the one that matters more. The "resources" 
one is just all the changed JNLP files.

Thanks,

-- 
Andrew A

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr1592-reproducer-new-tests-main.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 21164 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20131212/2dd6f7ce/pr1592-reproducer-new-tests-main-0001.patch 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr1592-reproducer-new-tests-resources.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 69218 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20131212/2dd6f7ce/pr1592-reproducer-new-tests-resources-0001.patch