RFR: 8344270: Update tier1_common and hotspot_misc groups to better organize hotspot non-component tests [v2]

[David Holmes]

On Tue, 20 May 2025 02:33:39 GMT, Leonid Mesnik <lmesnik at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can you please review following PR that improve test groups.
>> The bug was originally filed  to eliminate duplication between tier1_common and hotspot_misc test groups.  However while looked on the test content of these groups I realized that there are some other issues. 
>> 1) hotspot_resourcehogs groups should be executed always separately from other tests to don't cause intermittent failures.
>> 2) it makes sense to run all gtest tests in tier1 but don't run in any other tiers (with any VM flags) 
>> 3) testlibrary_tests and  sources should be a separate groups that don't need to be executed with any VM flags, or event with all builds 
>> 
>> So tier1_common includes non-component tests that should be executed in tier1. 
>> **all** sanity tests
>> **all** gttest tests (were not all of them)
>> testlibrary_tests (might be os/cpu specifc, so need to run them with all builds)
>> source code checking tests (no need to run them an all builds, but it takes only few seconds)
>> 
>> And it doesn't makes any sense to execute  tier1_common with any external VM flags.
>> 
>> While hotspot_misc now includes on 2 sanity tests.  It doesn't looks useful, but main purpose for this group would be to catch all tests that somehow missed from other groups. So let keep it. 
>> 
>> The new test groups were added mostly to add comments explaining their specific.
>
> Leonid Mesnik has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   updated after David's feedback

test/hotspot/jtreg/TEST.groups line 158:

> 156: 
> 157: # gtest and non_hotspot tests shouldn't be executed with VM flags
> 158: # hotspot_misc includes sanity testing and might be used

I don't understand the reference to hotspot_misc here. I don't see anything running/including hotspot_misc. ??

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25070#discussion_r2097650602