code review request: 8012971 PKCS11Test hiding exception failures

[Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng]

Yes, I think it'll help immensely if you have separate webrevs for each bug.
As the patches/changes are recorded into each bug record, I think we 
should always separate the changes out.
As far as I am concerned, this is more critical then the coding-style 
convention. But personal opinion may vary.
Thanks,
Valerie


On 07/10/13 21:56, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
> Sure I'll break it up if that's easier and someone will review it.
>
> thanks
>
> Tony
>
> On 07/10/2013 06:07 PM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>> Tony,
>>
>> Did someone review this yet?
>>
>> Since there are 3 bug fixes, can you separate them out into 3 webrevs?
>> I believe that has been the convention to have one webrev corresponding
>> to one bug.
>> Otherwise, things can get confusing for both reviewers as well as
>> sustaining if later they tried to backport.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 06/24/13 11:37, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
>>> I need a code review for some test changes.  They include the follow
>>> bugs:
>>> JDK-8012971 PKCS11Test hiding exception failures
>>> JDK-7193793 sun/security/pkcs11/ec/TestECDH.java failing intermittently
>>> JDK-7198198 sun/security/pkcs11/ec/ReadCertificates.java fails on Suse
>>> Linux
>>>
>>> A significant change is reading the NSS version. The test can now
>>> avoid old NSS libraries or a bug in a version of NSS that generate
>>> false jdk failures.  This greatly helps ECC support and curve support
>>> are varied.
>>>
>>> The fix to expose the exceptions that were being hidden did generate
>>> new test failures that already had filed bugs.  The failures were
>>> added to the ProblemList.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ascarpino/8012971/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>
>