RFR: 8165017: Additional test coverage of the JDWP CLASSLOADER and MODULE commands

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Hi Alexander,

This looks good.
Thank you for developing this test coverage!

Minor comment:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akulyakh/8165017_03/test/serviceability/jdwp/AllModulesCommandTest.java.frames.html

   33  * @summary Tests AllModules JDWP command

    Need to also list other JDWP commands that are tested:
      CommandSet ModuleReference=18 commands: Name=1, ClassLoader=2, 
CanRead=3
CommandSetReferenceType=2   commands: Module=19


I fonder if we have to include the jdkjdwp.agent module into the 
@modules list.

Thanks,
Serguei


On 9/14/16 03:02, Alexander Kulyakhtin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I, please, have some feedback regarding the RFR below?
>
> Best regards,
> Alexander
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alexander.kulyakhtin at oracle.com
> To: serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com, serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:06:13 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
> Subject: RFR: 8165017: Additional test coverage of the JDWP CLASSLOADER and MODULE commands
>
> Hi,
>
> Could you, please, review this test-only change
>
> CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165017 "Additional test coverage of the JDWP CLASSLOADER and MODULE commands"
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akulyakh/8165017_03/
>
> The verification of the new JDWP 'MODULE' command has been added to the existing test.
> The test now verifies that, among the classes visible to the classloader of the 'java.base' module, there are, indeed, classes that report the 'java.base' module as the module they belong to.
> The test verifies this by sending the 'MODULE' JDWP command passing the class id as a command parameter and checking the reply.
>
> Best regards,
> Alexander

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20160914/b3e7a077/attachment.html>