RFR: 7903519 : jtreg/jtharness is missing features for basic crash testing [v5]

[Jiří Vaněk]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:51:42 GMT, Vladimir Sitnikov <vsitnikov at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Well yeah I thought about that, but I believe that during the lookup there is no guarantee about the order in which the transformers would come, right? Our usecase would be to use this with a simple transformer that would transform it depending whether a crash happened or not during the execution.. however in some of our tests the crash is a desired outcome and we observe the behavior of our jvm during the crash - whether it links to correct bug reporting channels upon crash etc. In our scenarios we want to mark only crashes as failures and regular failures without crashes as passes.. also passed test in which a crash occurred would be also passed. I believe that there should only be one implementation allowed for now unless someone misses multiple implementations direly in the future, but that person can also squeeze implementation of multiple transformers into a single transformer, right?
>> 
>> I am not purely against, I am just not sure whether the benefits of allowing multiple implementations outweigh the possible errors due to forgotten implementations of transformers.
>
>> but I believe that during the lookup there is no guarantee about the order in which the transformers would come, right? 
> 
> I believe there's a certain order that is related to classpath order, modulepath order.

I like the idea of chained transformers.  The only issue indeed is order. Our usecase is jsut one of the many.  And chaining gives interesting posibilitues.

Maybe the interface can have `int getOrder` method and implements comparable with default method comparing by this, so order would be deterministc, and mainly - in user's hand? 

in addition it will solve the issue with default impl x null check. The transfomers would be simply list, and if empty, none will be applied.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jtharness/pull/57#discussion_r1426748420