RFR: 8158670: Fix @modules in java/lang/SecurityManager/CheckSecurityProvider.java

[Valerie Peng]

One of the purpose of this test is to test the ordering (see the initial 
bug which this test is for: JDK-6997010).

The original test already detects the OS and will skip certain providers 
accordingly.
Instead of splitting the test into multiple platform-specific tests, 
maybe we can keep the original test but add module-presence checking? Is 
there API available to query if certain module are present?
If yes, then we can leave out the platform-specific providers from the 
@modules line and skip the providers if either the OS does not match or 
the module is not present.

If we can't query what modules are available, then we may have to think 
of something else.
Valerie

On 6/27/2016 12:27 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> I’m including security-dev which would be a better list to review this test fix.
>
> Valerie,
>     Does this test have to be order-sensitive?  I think this test would be cleaner to make it order-insensitive and simply test the security provider initialization.
>
> See my comments below.
>
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline <alexandre.iline at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Please take a look on a suggested for for the java/lang/SecurityManager/CheckSecurityProvider.java test.
>>
>> The test in question depend on a list of modules, some of them are platform-specific. Listing all the dependencies in one test is causing the test to be skipped on every platform. In an offline conversation it was decided that it is better to split this tests into a few tests to declare the per-platform module dependencies.
>>
>> The bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8158670
>> The suggested fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8158670/webrev.00/
> The copyright header start year of the new tests should be 2016.
>
> I would suggest to make CheckSecurityProvide a platform-neutral test, i.e.,
> - drop @requires
> - make line 94-97 to ignore the platform-dependent provider if it’s present in the white list
>
> If we could make this test order-insensitive, it’d be cleaner to maintain a platform-neutral list of security providers and one list for the platform-dependent security providers for each platform.  Just an idea.
>
> Mandy
>