[rfc][icedtea-web] Add netx-dist-dist-tests-whitelist to .hgignore

[Jie Kang]

----- Original Message -----
> ...snip...
> >>>>> You understand it right. The reason to keep the file was to make it
> >>>>> simple. I'm
> >>>>> 50/50 to remove the file. Then, if file is not found, use default ".*".
> >>>>> If its
> >>>>> found, then it is used (no metter what is it)
> >>>>
> >>>> Reads very reasonable to me and seems to be a far better approach than
> >>>> the
> >>>> current one.
> >>>
> >>> On second sight, yes. Me or Jie (Thoughts?)  will implement.
> >>
> >> At ached  patch seems to do the job. The real removal from the repo maybe
> >> more
> >> fun. Once this     is approve, I will proceed with removal and correct
> >> ignoring
> >> of our file.
> >>
> >> diff -r a1b50e850558 Makefile.am
> >> --- a/Makefile.am    Wed Feb 18 18:47:18 2015 +0100
> >> +++ b/Makefile.am    Fri Feb 20 15:34:07 2015 +0100
> >> @@ -193,12 +193,15 @@
> >>  endif
> >>  endif
> >>
> >> +# if you create netx-dist-tests-whitelist in top directory, and palce
> >> "expr match" regexes
> >> +# (separate by space) into it, you can control reproducers which compile
> >> or/xor run.
> >
> > Err no, please put this into the "Building" or "Testing" section of the
> > README file. I do not think
> > package and distro maintainers are going to take a peek at Makefile.am
> > file, especially when they
> > are interested in running tests before releasing their package. Anyhow,
> > this isn't probably the best
> > place to put this kind of information.
> 
> Ufff.. I'm against moving to readme. I hope nobody expect itw (*few*  people
> really)  developers is
> interested in file. Not even maintainers.
> 
> The reproducers are described on wikipage[1], which is still moreover
> correct.
> 
> Actually when somebody developing ITW is looking for this whitelist, the
> makefile would be his
> better friend, or not?
> 
> The testing part of readme is directed to different audition. And the section
> of reproducers is
> intentionally missing.
> >
> > Besides, please check the spelling before checking in: palce -> place.
> > Are the regexes really separated by a simple space character and not by a
> > new line character? What
> Sure, it is IFS as it is iterated in simle loop.
> > about test names with spaces? One could probably escape those with \x20 or
> > \u0020, I guess. But I
> 
> Sure it is IFS what is used to iterate over the IFS separate strings. So by
> default \n \t and space
> 
> 
> The spaces in the regexes are generally not supported, but you can workaround
> itr by knowledge that
> it is expt match:
> 
> As names with spaces are supported for reproducers. The way how to use those
> in filter is:
> .*text\swith\sspaces where \s is wild char for any type of space in bas regex
> 
> see:
> [jvanek at jvanek ~]$ expr match "a a" "a\sa"
> 3
> [jvanek at jvanek ~]$ expr match "a a" "asa"
> 0
> [jvanek at jvanek ~]$ expr match "a a" "a a"
> 3
> 
> 
> > just would like to make sure the format gets properly documented. ;-)
> 
> Long story short, I would like to stay with current patch as it is - of
> course with fixed spelling
> and enriched info as you wished.
> 
> Are you ok with it?
> 
> Jie -does the code works for you?

Hello,

I tested the patch and the code works as expected.

Shouldn't the patch also include the removal of 'netx-dist-tests-whitelist' file? ($hg remove netx-dist-tests-whitelist)


Regards, 

> J.
> >
> >> +ECHO_WHITELIST=if [ -f $(REPRODUCERS_CLASS_WHITELIST) ] ; then cat
> >> $(REPRODUCERS_CLASS_WHITELIST)
> >> ; else echo ".*" ; fi
> >>  if ENABLE_WHITELIST
> >> -COMPILE_WHITELIST_FILTER=`cat $(REPRODUCERS_CLASS_WHITELIST)`
> >> +COMPILE_WHITELIST_FILTER=`$(ECHO_WHITELIST)`
> >>  RUN_WHITELIST_FILTER=.*
> >>  else
> >>  COMPILE_WHITELIST_FILTER=.*
> >> -RUN_WHITELIST_FILTER=`cat $(REPRODUCERS_CLASS_WHITELIST)`
> >> +RUN_WHITELIST_FILTER=`$(ECHO_WHITELIST)`
> >>  endif
> >>
> >>  if WITH_RHINO
> >
> 
> [1] http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/Reproducers
> 
> 

-- 

Jie Kang

OpenJDK Team - Software Engineering Intern