[rfc][icedtea-web] PR1592 reproducers update

[Andrew Azores]

On 01/20/2014 11:07 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> 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?

I like this idea, but I didn't know we were okay with having reproducers 
do tricks like this ;)

Thanks,

-- 
Andrew A

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: generated-jnlp.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 84386 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20140120/9b23f8c9/generated-jnlp-0001.patch