Supporting WSL in shell tests; was Re: [PATCH] Fix for EXE_SUFFIX being set for WSL having no effect

Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibbons at
Thu Jan 24 19:13:15 UTC 2019

As a correction to my earlier suggestion, I note that $JAVA_HOME should 
really be $TESTJAVA, or else something like


to get the best of both worlds.

But, to generalize summarize this thread, I think we're seeing ways to 
move forward without any additional changes to jtreg.

-- Jon

On 1/23/19 3:25 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> On 1/23/19 1:56 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> On 1/23/19 1:49 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> On 1/23/19 1:12 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>>>> I think it is only natural to expect folks to debug shell tests 
>>>> directly. If we accept this assumption, then, is there any 
>>>> reasonable alternative to “uname"? There is a “systeminfo” tool on 
>>>> windows, not sure if it helps. We really need to know what “uname 
>>>> -s” outputs, though, as it might still work.
>>> It would help if we could crowd-source a table showing the value on 
>>> different systems.
>>> -- jon
>> ... but that being said, `uname` will test the system being used to 
>> run the shell script; it seems we need to distinguish the different 
>> kinds of JDK we might be wanting to test ... i.e is the JDK a "Linux 
>> JDK" or a "WIndows JDK". You won't get that from `uname`, since (as I 
>> understand it) the WSL world can invoke either sort of JDK.
>> This seems to be the thinking behind Andrew's suggestion of providing 
>> WSL_TARGET, but it just seems weird, in his proposed text, to be 
>> testing WSL_TARGET when we might not be running on WSL.
>> -- Jon
> Here's a variant of Andrew's earlier suggestion that does not require 
> jtreg setting either EXE_SUFFIX or WSL_TARGET, which is nice because 
> that supports standalone invocation of the shell script for 
> development and debugging.
> OS=`uname -s`;
> case "$OS" in
>     Windows* | CYGWIN* )
>         FS="\\"
>         PS=";"
>         ;;
>     Linux )
>         if [ -r $JAVA_HOME/bin/java.exe ]; then
>             FS="\\"
>             PS=";"
>             EXE_SUFFIX=".exe"
>         else
>             FS="/"
>             PS=":"
>         fi
>         ;;
>     * )
>         FS="/"
>         PS=":"
> esac
> Note: that code is not tested on any platforms, and may need to be 
> adapted as needed in some tests .. e.g. some tests want SEP instead of 
> PS, some tests may also want NULL (set to NUL or /dev/null), etc
> Yes, the code fragment is growing, but Shura points out that if enough 
> tests would make use of it, we could put a script in a shared test 
> library somewhere, to reduce the impact in any individual test.
> -- Jon

More information about the quality-discuss mailing list