[rfc][icedtea-web] PR1592 reproducers update

[Jiri Vanek]

On 01/09/2014 08:06 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 11:17 AM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>> On 01/03/2014 02:43 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>> Updated PR1592 tests, using a custom reproducer rather than split simple/signed. This allows
>>> method calls to be made in the normal way as well as via reflection. JNLP includes both
>>> applications and applets now, and they close properly as well.
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew A
>>
>> Went back over this and realized one of the tests was written wrong. The
>> assertAccessControlException helper method in the testcase file is now a little stricter about the
>> type of AccessControlException (so that the exceptions due to applets not being allowed to call
>> System.exit don't falsely fulfill this assertion), and MixedSigningAppletHelper.attackDoPrivileged
>> now properly calls MixedSigningAppletSigned#testSignedReadPropertiesDoPrivileged, as it should
>> have been doing. In this case, the Unsigned JAR actually *is* meant to be able to retrieve data
>> from the Signed JAR (as is the point of the AccessController.doPrivileged call), so the testcases
>> now expect this test to successfully read from System.getProperty, rather than receive an
>> AccessControlException. However, the tests still verify that in situations where the Signed JAR
>> has a method call that involves a privileged action *without* being placed inside a doPrivileged
>> call, an AccessControlException will be thrown if the Unsigned code attempts to access it, as
>> expected.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> Sorry, please ignore the previous patch. The extra changes were not made based on the most recent
> other changes. Attached are the properly rebased patches, also split into three as they were
> originally.
>
> Thanks,
>

Thanx for ping.
There is really many of jnlps which are nearly similar. Maybe better idea can be to have one 
template, and generate all the rest from it?

I altready did this - and generated them ion BeforeClass.

What do you think?