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

[Tao Mao]

Changes look good. Ship it!

Tao

On 9/23/13 5:54 AM, Per Liden wrote:
> 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
>