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

Tim Du tiantian.du at oracle.com
Fri Sep 30 08:39:08 UTC 2016

Thanks Xuelei review it.
Latest webrev available here 
:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tidu/8164322/webrev.02/ ,Please help to 
review it. Thanks

On 2016/9/29 18:16, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 5:36 PM, Tim Du wrote:
>> Thank you for reviewing the codes.
>> Remove the codes which throw exception and add codes could show machine
>> not installed NSS library information.
>> The latest code is here:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tidu/8164322/webrev.01/ ,please help to
>> review it.
> Looks fine to me.  A very minor comment:
>  303   + ",please initialize ...
> Please add a white space between ",' and 'please".
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>> For whether throw exception caused by OS/machine issue ,I file an
>> Enhancement https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8166893 , we can
>> keep discussing by it ,and then the test
>> sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java could be supported to run on ARM
>> platform firstly. Thanks
>> Regards
>> Tim
>> On 2016/9/29 13:05, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>> On 9/29/2016 9:26 AM, Artem Smotrakov wrote:
>>>> Hi Xuelei,
>>>> This is not a problem with machine configuration. The actual test 
>>>> cases
>>>> are not going to be run (even if there are NSS libs on a test machine)
>>>> until "osMap" contains an entry for specific platform.
>>> OK.  Please fix for the purpose accordingly.
>>> Tim, the current fix has two parts.  The 1st part, which throw
>>> exception is a machine configuration problem, is not in the scope of
>>> Artem's consideration, please remove it.  The 2nd part, which add new
>>> items to the osMap, is fine to me.  I think we are on the same page
>>> now.  Please update the webrev accordingly.  I will approve the 2nd
>>> part fix.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Xuelei
>>>> Artem
>>>> On 09/28/2016 05:52 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>>>> Hi Artem,
>>>>> What do you think fix the testing infrastructure (JPRT/Mach5) with
>>>>> proper configuration?  I think it is a easier than update a large
>>>>> bunch of test codes.
>>>>> I understand the concerns of yours, but I don't want add additional
>>>>> effort for those who need to run the test on their own environment.
>>>>> Some people run the test locally before submit JPRT jobs (or no 
>>>>> access
>>>>> to JPRT systems for external people).
>>>>> Update the testing infrastructure may solve both of your concerns and
>>>>> my concerns.
>>>>> I'm not sure the @requires tag would work or not.  It would be great
>>>>> if you can find a solution with the tag.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Xuelei
>>>>> On 9/29/2016 4:32 AM, Artem Smotrakov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Xuelei,
>>>>>> I understand your concerns. But I'd prefer to be aware of situations
>>>>>> when a test reports that it passed when it actually did nothing.
>>>>>> How about using @requires key? We can try to specify all expected
>>>>>> platforms. If I understand correctly, jtreg won't run tests if
>>>>>> specified
>>>>>> requirements are not met. In this case, you need to look at the 
>>>>>> report
>>>>>> to make sure all tests you are interested in were run.
>>>>>> Artem
>>>>>> On 09/28/2016 08:00 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/2016 9:20 PM, Denis Kononenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> There're 60+ tests related to PKCS11. Two years they have been
>>>>>>>> "passed" on 3 unsupported platforms on hosts where usually no NSS
>>>>>>>> libraries were installed. How can we rely on these results?
>>>>>>> ;-) The words of "unsupported platforms" are very confusing in this
>>>>>>> mail thread.
>>>>>>> Let's think more about what if a test failed.  What one will do 
>>>>>>> if a
>>>>>>> test failed?
>>>>>>> 1. Test fail means source code problems for developers. One cannot
>>>>>>> submit a change-set if a test failed.  He need to pay additional
>>>>>>> effort and analysis the failure.  It take one developer a lot 
>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>> to know the root cause.  I would never like this unnecessary cost.
>>>>>>> 2. In order to get the test pass, he need to install the NSS libs
>>>>>>> although NSS has nothing to do with his changeset.  It may be a 
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> very hard step or even impossible (for example licenses issues) 
>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>> for him.
>>>>>>> TBH, I did not see much benefits to fail on unsupported 
>>>>>>> platforms.  I
>>>>>>> agree that skip for pass is not a good idea, but fail to warn is
>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>> I think the root cause if "unsupported platforms" actually are
>>>>>>> supported platforms, but by accident the NSS libraries are not
>>>>>>> installed or not installed properly.
>>>>>>> If one is not interested in NSS, the test get ignored (passed). If
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> is interested in NSS, he should install the NSS libs and the 
>>>>>>> test get
>>>>>>> checked.
>>>>>>> What do you think if fix the testing infrastructure with properly
>>>>>>> installed NSS libs?
>>>>>>> > The problem is the tests report they passed but actually they 
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> > skipped. I have no objections against skipping tests but it would
>>>>>>> > be better to give a hint somehow how many tests were skipped and
>>>>>>> why.
>>>>>>> Agreed.  Unfortunately, there are only two options, "pass" or 
>>>>>>> "fail",
>>>>>>> at present.  It would be nice if there is a grey area. Any idea to
>>>>>>> make summary of skipped tests and reasons?
>>>>>>> Xuelei

More information about the security-dev mailing list