Test Backports
Joe Darcy
joe.darcy at oracle.com
Tue Apr 6 17:25:18 PDT 2010
On 04/06/10 01:27 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 6 April 2010 01:43, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/10 02:41 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 31 March 2010 20:09, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29 March 2010 20:52, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a set of bidi and math tests:
>>
>> changeset: 817:8ea49fa4c2f7
>> user: peytoia
>> date: Fri Oct 17 13:34:03 2008 +0900
>> summary: 6759521: Move Bidi test programs from closed to open.
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/8ea49fa4c2f7
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I approve the bidi tests going back; please verify they pass first though
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Passed and pushed;
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/e1549056d958
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> changeset: 809:f3ad2ee4600b
>> user: darcy
>> date: Mon Jan 26 19:49:26 2009 -0800
>> description:
>> 6601457: Move wrapper class tests from closed to open
>> 6601458: Move java.math tests from closed to open
>> 6740185: Move java/lang/annotations tests to open
>> 6759433: Move Math and StrictMath regression tests from closed to open
>> Summary: Move some more regression tests to the open
>> Reviewed-by: jjg
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/f3ad2ee4600b
>>
>> that were opened up in OpenJDK7. Ok to backport these to 6?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I deny these other tests being backported since they have long
>> been
>> in OpenJDK 6 :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Doh! Looks like they were still lurking around in the IcedTea tree
>> but no longer being applied.
>>
>> I found a bunch of others too:
>>
>> comparing with ssh://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6-gate/jdk
>> searching for changes
>> changeset: 308:d5dc9130bdb0
>> user: volk
>> date: Sun Apr 13 23:41:40 2008 +0400
>> summary: 6686273: Some AWT reg. tests should be moved to open
>> repository (for CRs 6444769, 6480547, and 6560348)
>>
>> changeset: 309:fa6cfc27b519
>> user: ant
>> date: Wed Mar 26 16:20:01 2008 +0300
>> summary: 6680135: A number of test/closed/java/awt/Focus/* tests
>> should be opened
>>
>> changeset: 310:285a274f844a
>> user: sherman
>> date: Mon Jun 30 14:06:34 2008 -0700
>> summary: 6675856: Open charset tests
>>
>> changeset: 311:47f907e9c9b3
>> user: malenkov
>> date: Thu Jun 26 15:11:04 2008 +0400
>> summary: 6718964: Swing border tests should be open source
>>
>> changeset: 312:a6d7e84e31e1
>> user: malenkov
>> date: Thu Jun 26 15:39:12 2008 +0400
>> summary: 6718965: Swing color chooser tests should be open source
>>
>> changeset: 313:62168e9450f9
>> user: sherman
>> date: Thu Aug 13 15:01:18 2009 -0700
>> summary: 6676423: (prefs) Opensource unit/regression tests for
>> java.util.prefs
>>
>> changeset: 314:83980d94b138
>> tag: tip
>> user: sherman
>> date: Wed Jan 27 19:39:55 2010 -0800
>> summary: 6920732: opensource test/java/nio/charset
>>
>> Ok to backport? The majority pass, with the failures being in the AWT
>> ones (may be my setup, as some of the existing ones fail too) and
>> prefs (I think it's trying to acquire a lock on a NFS mount).
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes in principle, but let me dig into the particular changes a bit to
>> double-check they're applicable to and appropriate for OpenJDK 6.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, the comments suggested to me they were forwardports from the
>> proprietary tree but good to check.
>>
>>
>> I've looked over each of these patches, and they all seem applicable to
>> OpenJDK 6 so I approve all of them going back.
>>
>> (It is feasible a patch would be applicable to a portion of the proprietary
>> JDK 7, but not applicable to the corresponding portion of OpenJDK 6.)
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for checking. Obviously you're one of the few who can do so
> for the proprietary JDKs.
>
> Pushed: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2010-April/001427.html
>
Thanks.
>
>> On my queue, I have four more Zero patches and a set of backports I'd
>> like in (making the source/target explicit as we did in 7 already, and
>> Kelly's ant 1.8 patch). Everything else can wait until b20
>>
>>
>
> Here's the backport:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/6873059/webrev.01/jdk6.patch
>
> It's a replica of 6873059 as applied to the HotSpot, JDK and CORBA
> trees in OpenJDK7, the only difference being that we use 5 instead of
> 6 as the bootstrap version for OpenJDK6. Ok to push? Should I use
> the same bug ID or do you want to allocate a fresh one?
>
Using the same bug id is fine, but I'd like Kelly to sanity check it
before it goes back.
> On another note, there is now some code requiring source level 6 in
> OpenJDK6 (due to use of the @Override annotation on interfaces):
>
> src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/synth/SynthComboBoxUI.java
> src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/synth/SynthLookAndFeel.java
> src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/synth/SynthTreeUI.java
> src/share/classes/sun/security/provider/certpath/OCSPResponse.java
> src/share/classes/sun/swing/plaf/synth/SynthFileChooserUIImpl.java
>
There is an overly-long story behind -source 5 vs. -source 6 and
@Override. The short answer is that javac in JDK 6 unconditionally
applies the more liberal (and more useful) semantics for @Override. For
the JDK sources, a compiler that does the same should be used.
> So we should look at bumping the generated code version to 6 (it still
> seems to be 5 even though this is OpenJDK6). I'd prefer to leave that
> until b20 though.
>
> I see Kelly's patch went in. It would be nice to also backport
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/hotspot/rev/5fdbe2cdf565 (a minor
> warning fix) so IcedTea6's OpenJDK backport set is empty again.
>
I approve the warning fix being backported.
-Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20100406/c0a620c3/attachment.html
More information about the jdk6-dev
mailing list