[9] RFR: JDK-8164322: sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java shall be updated to run on ARM platforms

[Valerie Peng]

I think it makes sense to error out on unknown platforms.
This doesn't conflict with skipping tests (or silently passing) for 
unsupported platforms.
We just need a way to distinguish them. I'd probably go for the same 
approach that Max suggested, i.e. add the list of (known) unsupported 
platforms to osMap and errors out if the requested platform cannot be 
found in osMap.

Valerie

On 9/27/2016 7:22 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
> Looking at the webrev, it looks we've never tested on "Linux-arm-32" and "Linux-aarch64-64" before and we only realized it now. This is a true problem.
>
> On the other hand, I also agree with Xuelei's concern. If a new platform is added and it does not have NSS libs tests will fail.
>
> How about this? If there is such a new platform called "mhos-arch-32", we can add
>
>     osMap("mhos-arch-32", new String[]{});
>
> and, make nssLibDirs == null a failure, but nssLibDirs.length == 0 can return null.
>
> Is this good?
>
> Thanks
> Max
>
>
>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:25 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think, it is the expected behavior to ignore the test if a platform does not support it.  If showing failures, every testing on unsupported platform will fail, and additional effort MUST be paid to evaluate the root cause of the failure.  We should try to avoid that.
>>
>> Xuelei
>>
>> On 9/27/2016 6:32 PM, Tim Du wrote:
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> Would you help to review the patch for sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java?
>>> The test keep pass on not supported platforms, it will make nobody
>>> notice the test was skipped,which is not our expected. Update case to
>>> show failure, when platform not supported. And add the support for
>>> Linux-arm-32 and Linux-arm-64 platforms. Thanks.
>>>
>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164322
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tidu/8164322/webrev.00/
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Tim