RFR: 8143038: [TESTBUG] TestOptionsWithRanges: allow excluding only a subset of tested values specified for a flag

[Dmitry Dmitriev]

Hi Gerard,

Thank you for the review!

Dmitry

On 20.11.2015 21:37, gerard ziemski wrote:
> hi Dmitry,
>
> Looks good!
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2015 05:23 AM, Dmitry Dmitriev wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I implement Gerard suggestion about API names. Also, I update code to 
>> the hs-rt tip revision.
>> webrev.01: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddmitriev/8143038/webrev.01/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eddmitriev/8143038/webrev.01/>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dmitry
>>
>> On 19.11.2015 18:22, gerard ziemski wrote:
>>> hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> Looks good.
>>>
>>> They only feedback I have is that I'm not too crazy about the name 
>>> "notTest*Range" for API. How about
>>> "excludeTest*Range" instead?
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2015 02:00 PM, Dmitry Dmitriev wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Please review enhancement to the command line option validation 
>>>> test framework.
>>>>
>>>> Currently TestOptionsWithRanges test have several options excluded 
>>>> from testing, because these options with big or small
>>>> values can cause problem with testing(create a huge number of 
>>>> threads or consume too much memory). This enhancement
>>>> added ability to exclude max or min values from testing and 
>>>> TestOptionsWithRanges was corrected to use this enhancement.
>>>>
>>>> Also, in this fix I remove adding negative out-of-range values for 
>>>> the unsigned options, because negative values are
>>>> actual invalid(not out-of-range) values for unsigned options.
>>>>
>>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143038
>>>> webrev.00: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddmitriev/8143038/webrev.00/
>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eddmitriev/8143038/webrev.00/>
>>>> Testing: tested on all platforms. One of the test was failed on 
>>>> win-64 platform, but this is not relate to this change.
>>>> Filled https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143249 for 
>>>> that(which seems related to the JDK-8069282)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Dmitry
>>>>
>>
>>