8039081: [TEST_BUG] Test java/awt/TrayIcon/PopupMenuLeakTest/PopupMenuLeakTest.java fails

[Hohensee, Paul]

I've posted a review request for 8160974, modified the 8039081 patch accordingly, and will tag 8039081.

Thanks,
Paul

On 11/13/20, 12:59 PM, "jdk8u-dev on behalf of Hohensee, Paul" <jdk8u-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net on behalf of hohensee at amazon.com> wrote:

    Thanks for the review, Volker.

    You're right, the correct thing to do is wait for 8160974. The existing 8160974 proposed patch may have to be changed anyway to account for the 3077 patch series, as I had to do for 8159690.

    Paul

    On 11/13/20, 11:59 AM, "Volker Simonis" <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:

        On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:03 AM Hohensee, Paul <hohensee at amazon.com> wrote:
        >
        > Please review this backport, which is part of the patch tail for https://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3077.
        >
        > JBS issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039081
        > Commit: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/42925c7a35aa
        > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8039081/webrev.8u.jdk.01/
        >
        > Patch applies cleanly after the 3077 sequence, except for copyright dates in TrayIcon.java and TrayIconPeer.java, and the lack of an @headful attribute in the current 8u version of PopupMenuLeakTest.java.
        >

        Hi Paul,

        the change looks good to me.

        I'm just wondering if we should leave the "@headful" attribute in this
        change? It was initially added by 8160974 which came before
        JDK-8039081 in jdk9. 8160974 is also out for 8u review and it should
        ideally be pushed before this change in which case the @headful
        attribute will be already present in the test and that part of the
        patch would apply cleanly. If you don't want to wait for 8160974 being
        reviewed and applied before this change you'd probably better leave
        the attribute in the patch so it won't be lost (the corresponding part
        of 8160974 will have to be resolved manually either way).

        But I'll leave the decision up to you. As I wrote, I'm also fine with
        this version.

        Best regards,
        Volker

        > Thanks,
        > Paul
        >