On 4/19/2016 12:42 PM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hi Prasanta,
In test case there is an indentation problem for multiline comments in jtreg.
Also what I have observed is that in case of jtreg summary if we include "." after
running jtreg in the report it will not show complete summary it will show only until the
"."
In your case it will show only " Verifies PrinterJob ". Please update the
summary. Other changes are fine.
Thanks Jay. Although I did not see this problem but maybe different
version of jtreg has this issue.Anyways, I have modified the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/6197099/webrev.02/
Regards
Prasanta
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: prasanta sadhukhan
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:35 PM
To: Philip Race
Cc: 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR: JDK-6197099 : PrinterJob.getUserName()
throws a security exception when user.name permission is not given
Hi Phil,
Please find the modified webrev with the testcase:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/6197099/webrev.01/
Regards
Prasanta
On 4/13/2016 8:05 PM, Philip Race wrote:
This needs a test. You can provide one by following other similar
examples.
Also it needs a CCC to document the exception.
Finally, I am a bit surprised at the exact exception.
Where precisely does this originate (stack trace, please) ?
Probably we should throw SecurityException instead, even if it is not
the exact behaviour today.
Just make sure that our own code is ready for such a change.
-phil.
On 4/12/16, 10:23 PM, prasanta sadhukhan wrote:
Resending with bugid in the subject line.
On 4/6/2016 5:06 PM, prasanta sadhukhan wrote:
Hi All,
Please review a document fix for jdk9
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6197099
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/6197099/webrev.00/
PrinterJob.getUserName() is supposed to return the current user name
of the system. This method does not document any exception.
But when SecurityManager is installed, this method throws a security
exception when PropertyPermission - user.name is not given in the
policy file.
But this is not documented anywhere and hence the user will not know
until he gets the exception.
Documented the long-standing existing exception.
will raise a ccc after the technical review.
Regards
Prasanta
