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

[Dmitry Dmitriev]

Hello,

Please, can I get Review for that fix? Thank you!

Dmitry

On 20.11.2015 14:23, 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
>>>
>