jtreg shell tests
Jonathan Gibbons
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Sat Jan 26 16:40:51 UTC 2019
I don't think we should force the elimination of shell tests, but we
should definitely encourage it. (i.e. Option 1.)
The underlying theme in options 1-4 is to minimize the effort required
to accommodate the changes needed to support the use of WSL to run
tests; not to impose effort. Carrots, not sticks.
Of course, Sergey, if you'd like to volunteer to convert all the client
tests, that would be your prerogative. Just yesterday, I had a chat with
Phil, giving anecdotes about how we converted almost all of the
langtools shell tests, by writing a library that provided methods based
on the shell commands that we saw in our shell scripts: cp, mv, rm,
diff, grep, etc. Others have done the same for some of the core-libs
tests. We can start a separate thread if you'd like to discuss such
techniques.
-- Jon
On 1/25/19 5:16 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> No my point was radical drop of all such tests.
>
> On 25/01/2019 17:05, Andrew Luo wrote:
>> Isn't that option 1?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Andrew
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: quality-discuss <quality-discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On
>> Behalf Of Sergey Bylokhov
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:00 PM
>> To: Jonathan Gibbons <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>;
>> quality-discuss at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: jtreg shell tests
>>
>> There is one more Option 5.
>>
>> Drop shell tests from the workspace and provide some examples on how
>> to write such logic using java api.
>>
>> On 25/01/2019 16:43, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> With all the recent discussion regarding how to support the use of
>>> Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) as an alternate to Cygwin, it
>>> seems worth writing up some recommendations on writing jtreg shell
>>> tests.
>>> The intent of these notes is that they will evolve into a page in
>>> the jtreg section on the OpenJDK website.
>>>
>>> The focus is specifically about different approaches to providing the
>>> ability to run a shell test on all supported platforms, by means of
>>> abstracting the significant differences into a series of environment
>>> variables that are set according to the environment in which the
>>> test is running.
>>>
>>> Option 1.
>>>
>>> Convert the test to Java. In general, this continues to be the
>>> recommended alternative.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 2.
>>>
>>> Use a shell `case` statement, like the following, or a variant thereof:
>>>
>>> OS=`uname -s`;
>>> case "$OS" in
>>> Windows* | CYGWIN* )
>>> FS="\\"
>>> PS=";"
>>> NULL=NUL
>>> ;;
>>>
>>> Linux )
>>> if [ -r $TESTJAVA/bin/java.exe ]; then
>>> FS="\\"
>>> PS=";"
>>> EXE_SUFFIX=".exe"
>>> else
>>> FS="/"
>>> PS=":"
>>> fi
>>> NULL=/dev/null
>>> ;;
>>>
>>> * )
>>> FS="/"
>>> PS=":"
>>> NULL=/dev/null
>>> esac
>>>
>>> Option 3.
>>>
>>> Use a shared library script to embody the behavior in the previous
>>> example. jtreg now provides a new `TESTROOT` environment variable,
>>> which makes it easy to reference a shared script in a constant
>>> manner from any shell test, wherever the test is within the test
>>> suite. Since the library script is used to set environment variables
>>> like `FS`, `PS`, and `NULL`, it should be executed with `source` and
>>> not `bash` or `sh`.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 4.
>>>
>>> jtreg now sets the following environment variables when running a
>>> shell script: `FS`, `PS`, `NULL` and `EXE_SUFFIX`. This may be
>>> enough to completely avoid the need for a `case` statement in each
>>> shell script or the use of a shared library script to set these
>>> variables.
>>>
>>>
>>> Running scripts standalone.
>>>
>>> One concern when working with shell tests has been the ability to
>>> run the test "stand-alone", without the use of jtreg. In the past,
>>> this was seen as justification for the explicit use of the `case`
>>> statement in each shell test. However, the need to run shell tests
>>> standalone no longer seems to be a significant concern. For those
>>> that do want to run shell tests by themselves, it is worth noting
>>> that once a test has been run by jtreg, the ".jtr" file contains
>>> "rerun" sections with details on how to run each action of the test.
>>> You can either copy/paste/edit from the ".jtr" file directly, or use
>>> the jtreg `-show:rerun` option to output the information to the
>>> standard output stream.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, Sergey.
>>
>
>
More information about the quality-discuss
mailing list