RFR (S): 8024634 - gc/startup_warnings tests can fail due to unrelated warnings

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

OK, sounds good.
Ship it!
/Jesper

Per Liden skrev 23/9/13 2:54 PM:
> Thanks Jesper!
>
> On 2013-09-23 14:23, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
>> The change look OK.
>> Would the tests be more "stable" if they were checking for more than one word
>> in the warning?
>
> Problem is that the test wants to check that "nothing" is printed. Where
> "nothing" here is a bit undefined, but at least it shouldn't say anything about
> this or that GC option being deprecated. Checking for more than one word doesn't
> help much because we actually don't know what we are looking for. The whole test
> is a bit questionable, but with this change it at least doesn't fail because of
> random unrelated warnings.
>
>>
>> Are there any tests that checks that we do get the deprecated warning for
>> deprecated flag combinations? If so, they should probably be changed in the
>> same way so that they don't pass because some other non related warning is
>> issued.
>
> Yes, there are such tests, but they are stable because unlike the other tests
> these are checking that a specific warning _is_ printed, for example:
>
> TestDefaultMaxRAMFraction.java:    output.shouldContain("warning:
> DefaultMaxRAMFraction is deprecated and will likely be removed in a future
> release. Use MaxRAMFraction instead.");
>
> TestDefNewCMS.java:    output.shouldContain("warning: Using the DefNew young
> collector with the CMS collector is deprecated and will likely be removed in a
> future release");
>
> TestCMSIncrementalMode.java:    output.shouldContain("warning: Using incremental
> CMS is deprecated and will likely be removed in a future release");
>
> TestParNewSerialOld.java:    output.shouldContain("warning: Using the ParNew
> young collector with the Serial old collector is deprecated and will likely be
> removed in a future release");
>
> /Per
>
>> /Jesper
>>
>>
>> Per Liden skrev 23/9/13 1:15 PM:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could I please have a couple of reviews on this small test fix.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8024634/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024634
>>>
>>> Summary: Some tests check that no warnings are printed when a specific GC is
>>> used. These test are a bit too generic and can catch and fail on all sorts of
>>> non-GC related warnings. What we actually want to test is that we don't print
>>> any message about these GCs being deprecated (as is the case for some other GC
>>> combinations). This isn't exactly bullet proof either since some non-GC
>>> component could print something containing "deprecated", but if that starts to
>>> become a problem we'll have to reconsider the usefulness of these tests.
>>>
>>> Testing: Have run the jtreg tests for GC
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> /Per
>