RFR (M) 8223040: Add a AGCT test

[Jean Christophe Beyler]

Hi Serguei,

Thanks for the review, I fixed the bug name but have not yet changed the
webrev. Does anyone else have an opinion of the naming of the tests?

Thanks all!
Jc

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:10 PM <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Jc,
>
> I'd suggest to change the bug title to be:
>    Add a AsyncGetCallTrace test
>
> I'm not sure about the test names.
> Maybe, it is Okay to keep the AGCT abbreviation.
> But I'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
> On 4/30/19 3:47 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As I start looking at working on the AGCT bugs, I wanted to at least start
> creating a baseline of tests for AGCT. This is an attempt to just have a
> "base" test (and infrastructure) that tries to call AGCT and get back some
> sane information.
>
> Next step will be to add a few more tests that will be exposing the
> limitations of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178287 for
> example.
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8223040/webrev.00/
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223040
>
> This passed the test on my linux machine (the test is only for linux due
> to the dlsym) and the submit-repo.
>
> Thanks,
> Jc
>
>
>

-- 

Thanks,
Jc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20190502/9e5f811d/attachment.html>