RFR: 8353955: nsk/jdi tests should be fixed to not always require includevirtualthreads=y [v8]

[Chris Plummer]

On Fri, 16 May 2025 20:57:38 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplummer at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> What this PR is fixing is the issue with all of our nsk/jdi testing being done with includevirtualthreads=y even though debuggers typically use the default includevirtualthreads=n. As a result we have a testing gap with includevirtualthreads=n.
>> 
>> includevirtualthreads=y forces the debug agent to track all virtual threads so they are returned by vm.allThreads(). Some tests need this since they use vm.allThreads() to find the debuggee threads. Without includevirtualthreads=y, vm.allThreads() usually won't return any virtual threads (although it might return some for which events have been triggered).
>> 
>> There are nearly 1200 nsk/jdi tests. There were about 350 tests that actually needed includevirtualthreads=y, but most of these have been addressed by other PRs, leaving the 20 or so tests being addressed in this PR. With this PR now defaulting to includevirtualthreads=n, the tests that require includevirtualthreads=y need to override the default by specifying the -includevirtualthreads @run option.
>
> Chris Plummer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8353955_nsk_jdk_includevirtualthreads
>  - fix broken copyright
>  - remove mistaken edit
>  - remove mistaken edit
>  - Remove mistakenly added file.
>  - update the set of tests that need to be run with -includevirtualthreads
>  - No longer any need for -includevirtualthreads with these tests.
>  - Add support for -includevirtualthreads test argument.
>  - get rid of commented out change
>  - Don't always use includevirtualthreads=y

I finished merging with the dependent PRs and have teste. All tests seem to be passing now. I think this PR is now ready for final review and integration.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24606#issuecomment-2887756499