RFR 8246337: Add more JVM tests for sealed classes

[Harold Seigel]

Hi Lois,

Thanks for looking at the changes.  Please see inline comments below.

On 6/25/2020 12:42 PM, Lois Foltan wrote:
> On 6/22/2020 9:06 AM, Harold Seigel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review this change to add more JVM tests for sealed classes.  
>> With this change there are now the following set of tests for both 
>> sealed classes and sealed interfaces.
>>
>> 1. Successful tests when both the subclass and its sealed super type
>>    are in the same module and package and subclass is listed on its
>>    sealed type's permits list.
>> 2. Successful tests when both the subclass and its sealed super type
>>    are in the same module, different package, and the subclass is open
>>    and is listed on its sealed type's permits list.
>> 3. Error tests for when the subclass and its sealed super type are in
>>    different modules and the subclass is listed on its sealed type's
>>    permits list.
>> 4. Error tests for when the subclass and its sealed super type are in
>>    the same module, but different packages, and the subclass is not
>>    open and the subclass is listed on its sealed type's permit list.
>> 5. Error tests for when the subclass and its sealed super type are in
>>    the same module and package but the subclass is not listed on its
>>    sealed type's permits list.
>>
>> Open Webrev: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8246337/webrev/index.html
>>
>> JBS Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8246337
>>
>> The new and modified tests were tested on Linux-x64, Linux-aarch64, 
>> Windows, and Mac OS X using Mach5.
>>
>> Thanks, Harold
>>
>>
>
> Hi Harold,
>
> Good additions to the testing for covering different/same module & 
> packages.  I would have liked to seen 2 other tests
>
> - differing class loaders for a subclass and its sealed super type in 
> the unnamed module/unnamed package situation.
>   I assume the test should fail due to differing unnamed modules for 
> each class loader
I don't think that such a test is needed because, by definition, if the 
subclass and its sealed super have different class loaders then they 
must be in different modules.  And, tests for different modules already 
exist in this webrev.
>
> - also, a nestmates test.  One where the non-public subclass and its 
> sealed super type are in the same module & package but the super type 
> is not in the same nest as the subclass.
>   Again, I assume the test should fail.

Nestmates are not involved with sub-typing so this test would not fail.  
Also, since classes without a specified nest host belong to their own 
nests, this test already exists.  See, for example, the test at line 44 
in SealedUnnamedModuleIntfTest.java.

Thanks, Harold

>
> I'm ok if you want to open a separate RFE for these 2 other tests.
>
> Thanks,
> Lois
>
>