JTreg errors in OpenJDK6 - missing HTML files

[Joe Darcy]

Pavel Tisnovsky wrote:
> Joe Darcy wrote:
>>   Hello.
>>
>> On 04/28/10 06:14 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> On 28 April 2010 13:10, Pavel Tisnovsky <ptisnovs at redhat.com> 
>>> <mailto:ptisnovs at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I saw that some JTreg tests, specifically:
>>>>
>>>> java/awt/Focus/ActualFocusedWindowTest/ActualFocusedWindowBlockingTest.java 
>>>>
>>>> java/awt/Focus/ActualFocusedWindowTest/ActualFocusedWindowRetaining.java 
>>>>
>>>>  java/awt/Focus/NonFocusableWindowTest/NonfocusableOwnerTest.java
>>>>
>>>> fails due to absence of HTML files from which these tests are 
>>>> started as
>>>> applets.
>>>>     
>>
>> I looked into those error messages a little bit; the corresponding 
>> tests pass fine on JDK 7 and JDK 7 doesn't have the *.html files 
>> reported as missing in OpenJDK 6.
>>
>>>> There are some error messages:
>>>> Error. Can't find HTML file:
>>>> /jck/icedtea6/openjdk/jdk/test/java/awt/Focus/ActualFocusedWindowTest/ActualFocusedWindowBlockingTest.html 
>>>>
>>>> Error. Can't find HTML file:
>>>> /jck/icedtea6/openjdk/jdk/test/java/awt/Focus/ActualFocusedWindowTest/ActualFocusedWindowRetaining.html 
>>>>
>>>> Error. Can't find HTML file:
>>>> /jck/icedtea6/openjdk/jdk/test/java/awt/Focus/NonFocusableWindowTest/NonfocusableOwnerTest.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> May I write the required HTML files or are these files missing due 
>>>> to some
>>>> improper commit?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Pavel
>>>>
>>>>     
>>> I think this fix needs to be backported:
>>>
>>> changeset:   202:4a6dd11fe9fc
>>> user:        ant
>>> date:        Wed Mar 26 17:38:26 2008 +0300
>>> summary:     6616792: five AWT focus regression tests should be fixed
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/4a6dd11fe9fc
>>>
>>> Joe, ok for OpenJDK6?
>>>   
>>
>> If applying the patch resolves the test failures, I approve it going 
>> back now.
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> should we create webrev for these changes?
>

Since the change has already been pushed, I don't think that is 
necessary :-)  If a change is a small, straight backport that applies 
cleanly, the release-specific webrev often can be skipped.

-Joe