Bugfix: do not set TESTMODULES environment variable if JDK is not modular

[Jonathan Gibbons]

On 2/8/18 4:41 AM, Zdeněk Žamberský wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 05:36 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Jiri, Mila,
>>
>> I wonder why the fix is necessary.
>>
>> TESTMODULES contains a property of the test description (the @modules 
>> entry).  The env variable will not be set if the value is empty.
>>
>> So, given that (versions of) test suites are generally specific to a 
>> version of the JDK, I wonder why you are trying to run tests with 
>> @module entries on a non-modular JDK.
>>
>> And, if there is a plausible test case for such tests, the fix is 
>> arguably incomplete, because the TEST* environment variables for 
>> shell tests mirror the test.* system properties for Java tests.
>>
>> I think a better direction would be to warn against the use of 
>> @modules on a non-modular JDK.
>>
>> -- Jon
>
> ... this reply surprised me a bit
>
> Actually we have big jtreg test suites, which we run on various JDKs
> (both modular and non-modular). Most of these are java jtregs,
> where we fixed lot of them to work on both modular and non-modular JDKs,
> by adding @modules tag. But some of these tests use shell scripts
> (various special cases), so being able to infer modularity of JDK from
> environment variables in these (shell jtreg tests), would be very 
> convenient.
>
> We definitely do not favor duplication of tests for modular JDK...

Inferring the modularity of the JDK should be done by examining the
(version of the) JDK, not by relying on a value derived from an optional
setting in a test description.

-- Jon

>
>>
>> On 2/6/18 2:55 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2017 05:35 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2017 11:37 AM, Miloslav Zezulka wrote:
>>>>> This is a very small patch fixing the issue pointed out in 
>>>>> $subject. I've
>>>>> added checks for both compile and test JDK - is this an overkill, 
>>>>> since
>>>>> most of the time the implication goes COMPILEJDK.modular =>
>>>>> TESTJDK.modular, or a necessary thing to have for foolproofness?
>>>>
>>> ping?
>>>>
>>>> Works fine. Johnatan, can you push it? Or do you wont mila to 
>>>> create regular webrev? Is there some place to add test for it?
>>>>
>>>> Tahnx a lot!
>>>>    J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> best regards,
>