RFR: 8298588: WebSockets: HandshakeUrlEncodingTest unnecessarily depends on a response body

[Severin Gehwolf]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:04:00 GMT, Michal Karm Babacek <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Checking the response URI is good but for the mainline I'd advise to check both the response URI and the body. It's fine to not check the response body on the update releases where [JDK-8240666](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240666) is not present.
>> 
>> Whether you want to backport [JDK-8240666](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240666) or not is an independent and unrelated decision - IMO.
>
>> Checking the response URI is good but for the mainline I'd advise to check both the response URI and the body. It's fine to not check the response body on the update releases where [JDK-8240666](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240666) is not present.
>> 
>> Whether you want to backport [JDK-8240666](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240666) or not is an independent and unrelated decision - IMO.
> 
> Thank you for the comment @dfuch 
> 
> My objective is to have [JDK-8245245](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8245245) fixed in JDK 11.
> 
> I cannot do that cleanly because if I just took the original patch unchanged, HandshakeUrlEncodingTest would start to fail as it depends on  [JDK-8240666](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240666).
> 
> I was advised that is it not the best practice to alter something, i.e. HandshakeUrlEncodingTest, just in JDK 11 without doing it on the tip (mainline) first.
> 
> I don't think it's justifiable to backport [JDK-8240666](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240666) solely to be able to cleanly backport  [JDK-8245245](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8245245) as those two issues are only superficially related as I see it.
> 
> Could you help me put this in the context of our commentary on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u-dev/pull/1558#issuecomment-1346687952 and to plot a course of action that would be suitable, please?

@Karm Have you considered my suggestion from earlier? `Would the patch be more amenable if it were to add additional body assertions iff the body is present?` Perhaps that would be a middle ground to agree on?

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11486