<i18n dev> RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

[Leo Korinth]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:23:55 GMT, Leo Korinth <lkorinth at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of createTestJvm.
>> 
>> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed -i -e "s/createJavaProcessBuilder(/createJavaProcessBuilderIgnoreTestJavaOpts(/g"`
>> 
>> Then I have manually modified ProcessTools.java. In that file I have moved one version of createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is close to the other version. Then I have added a javadoc comment in bold telling:
>> 
>>    /**
>>      * Create ProcessBuilder using the java launcher from the jdk to
>>      * be tested.
>>      *
>>      * <p><b> Please observe that you likely should use
>>      * createTestJvm() instead of this method because createTestJvm()
>>      * will add JVM options from "test.vm.opts" and "test.java.opts"
>>      * </b> and this method will not do that.
>>      *
>>      * @param command Arguments to pass to the java command.
>>      * @return The ProcessBuilder instance representing the java command.
>>      */
>> 
>> 
>> I have used the name createJavaProcessBuilderIgnoreTestJavaOpts because of the name of Utils.prependTestJavaOpts that adds those VM flags. If you have a better name I could do a rename of the method. I kind of like that it is long and clumsy, that makes it harder to use...
>> 
>> I have run tier 1 testing, and I have started more exhaustive testing.
>
> Leo Korinth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   fix static import

I have created an alternative that uses enums to force the user to make a decision: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/compare/master...lkorinth:jdk:+process_tools . Another alternative is to do the same but instead using an enum (I think it is not as good). A third alternative is to use the current pull request with a better name.

What do you prefer? Do you have a better alternative? Do someone still think the current code is good? I think what we have today is inferior to all these improvements, and I would like to make it harder to develop bad test cases.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15452#issuecomment-1705068700