[8u-dev] Request for approval: backport of JDK-8048357: PKCS basic tests & backport of JDK-8143377: Test PKCS8Test.java fails

[Rob McKenna]

I haven't seen a response from a code reviewer regarding the updated changes. (if they're big enough to warrant re-approval then we should get them codereviewed again too)

Am I looking in the right place?

    -Rob

On 14/04/16 06:27, Artem Kosarev wrote:
> I provided all my changes in this thread:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2016-April/005247.html
> 
> Artem K.
> 
> 
> 
> On 13.04.2016 18:02, Rob McKenna wrote:
> >Can you point to an updated review thread?
> >
> >	-Rob
> >
> >On 13/04/16 02:19, Artem Kosarev wrote:
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>Few days ago I wrote that I have to Request for approval for below issues
> >>one more time:
> >>a) backport of Test Enhancement: JDK-8048357: PKCS basic tests
> >>b) backport of Test bug fix: JDK-8143377: Test PKCS8Test.java fails
> >>They contain slight changes (see below).
> >>
> >>Could you please approve it one more time.
> >>Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Artem Kosarev.
> >>
> >>On 06.04.2016 17:55, Artem Kosarev wrote:
> >>>After some complaints from commiter had to apply some more minor changes..
> >>>
> >>>Enhancement has minor changes:
> >>>1) @modules statements (not applicable for JDK 8) were removed.
> >>>2) Copyright year of last modification is set to current
> >>>Here is a webrev:
> >>>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msolovie/8048357/webrev.00
> >>>Original fix in JDK 9:
> >>>
> >>>"PKCS basic tests": https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8048357
> >>>Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-November/013022.html
> >>>
> >>>JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/c071ebc7f3bf
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Bug fix has 2 small changes (+1 from previous revision):
> >>>1) Patch from JDK 9 couldn't be applied clearly, since we had changes from
> >>>JDK 9 version (see above)
> >>>2) We don't require removal of this test from Problem list, because it
> >>>doesn't exist in Problem list for JDK8.
> >>>Code change itself is same as in JDK 9.
> >>>
> >>>Here is a webrev:
> >>>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msolovie/8143377/webrev.01
> >>>Original fix in JDK 9:
> >>>
> >>>"Test PKCS8Test.java fails":
> >>>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143377
> >>>Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-November/013082.html
> >>>
> >>>JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/33fd40487d6d
> >>>
> >>>Enhancement + Bug Fix combination was successfully tested with JPRT.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks in advance.
> >>>
> >>>Best regards,
> >>>Artem Kosarev.
> >>>
> >>>On 29.03.2016 15:59, Rob McKenna wrote:
> >>>>Approved.
> >>>>
> >>>>     -Rob
> >>>>
> >>>>On 28/03/16 07:36, Artem Kosarev wrote:
> >>>>>Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please approve the following backports: one enhancement + bug fix of
> >>>>>regression tests to 8u-dev.:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Both Enhancements and the bug fix were originally reviewed by Weijun
> >>>>>Wang.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Enhancement is applied clearly (no changes).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"PKCS basic tests"
> >>>>>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8048357
> >>>>>Review thread:
> >>>>>http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-November/013022.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>JDK 9 changeset:
> >>>>>http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/c071ebc7f3bf
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Bug fix has a very little change: we don't require removal of this
> >>>>>test from
> >>>>>Problem list, because it doesn't exist in Problem list for JDK8.
> >>>>>Here is a webrev:
> >>>>>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msolovie/8143377/webrev.00
> >>>>><http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emsolovie/8143377/webrev.00>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Original fix in JDK 9:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Test PKCS8Test.java fails"
> >>>>>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143377
> >>>>>Review thread:
> >>>>>http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-November/013082.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>JDK 9 changeset:
> >>>>>http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/33fd40487d6d
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thank you,
> >>>>>Artem Kosarev.
> >>>
>