RFR XXS 8133537: clarify position of unlock options in error messages

[David Holmes]

On 17/08/2015 11:08 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 8/16/15 8:09 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> As much as it pains me to do this to you do we really need two lines
>> instead of just changing eg:
>>
>> must be enabled via -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>>
>> to
>>
>> must be enabled by preceding it with -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>
> Thought about doing it this way, but I didn't want to risk
> running into a test that was looking for the specific existing
> error message. As it was, I was worried about a 'golden file'
> style of test, but (so far) my testing hasn't shown that
> I've run into that particular style of landmine...

Yes there is a risk with any change in output.

> Also, I think having the separate line makes the requirement
> stand out more.

Yes but in a detrimental way in my opinion. "Gee if they had to document 
twice that you put the flag first then there must be a lot of people 
getting it wrong, so obviously there's a usability issue there."

> Can I convince you to move forward with the
> wording change as it is right now?

Given this whole thing has consumed way too much time anyway - yes.

Thanks,
David

> Dan
>
>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> On 15/08/2015 6:53 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I have a very small code review request to clarify the wording used
>>> when the following options are specified in the wrong place:
>>>
>>>      -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>>>      -XX:+UnlockExperimentalVMOptions
>>>
>>> Even though this is a trivial change on the surface, we will not be
>>> following the HotSpot Trivial Change Rules. This means I need two
>>> reviewers and one must be a (R)eviewer.
>>>
>>> See the bug link for examples of the new output.
>>>
>>> 8133537: clarify position of unlock options in error messages
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133537
>>>
>>> Webrev URL:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8133537-webrev/0-jdk9-hs-rt/
>>>
>>> Testing: JPRT -testset hotspot is in process
>>>           Aurora Adhoc Runtime-SVC Nightly testing (will be submitted
>>> next)
>>>           (sanity check to make sure new error message line
>>>            does not break any tests)
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for any comments, questions or suggestions.
>>>
>>> Dan
>