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

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

Finished crawling through the Aurora Adhoc "Runtime-SVC Nightly tests"
results and didn't find any regressions due to this change.

Will be committing and pushing this change shortly.

Thanks again to Coleen and David H for the reviews.

Dan


On 8/18/15 10:30 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 8/17/15 2:59 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> 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."
>
> I can't think of anything to say here that's not been said
> before so I'm just gonna move on.
>
>
>>
>>> 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. I have to crawl through the test results and then I'll
> get this one out of my hair.
>
> Dan
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>
>
>