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

[Christian Tornqvist]

Hi Dmitry,

This looks good.

Thanks,
Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: hotspot-dev [mailto:hotspot-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Dmitry Dmitriev
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 6:24 AM
To: gerard ziemski <gerard.ziemski at oracle.com>; hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net Developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: RFR: 8143038: [TESTBUG] TestOptionsWithRanges: allow excluding only a subset of tested values specified for a flag

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
>>