Hi Erik, please see my answers inline.
can I consider this RFR as reviewed by you? Thanks, -- Igor > On May 14, 2018, at 4:23 AM, Erik Helin <erik.he...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 05/08/2018 12:35 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote: >> Hi all, > > Hi Igor, > > On 05/08/2018 12:35 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote: >> could you please review the patch which open sources GC tests from vm >> testbase? it introduces the following test groups: >> - vmTestbase_vm_g1classunloading >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_compact >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_concurrent >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_container >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_juggle >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_locker >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_ref >> - vmTestbase_vm_gc_misc > > This is a very welcome, and pretty massive, change :) I won't be able to read > through each test, there are simple too many, but I can sample a few of them > and have a look. > > On 05/08/2018 12:35 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote: >> As usually w/ VM testbase code, these tests are old, they have been run in >> hotspot testing for a long period of time. Originally, these tests were run >> by a test harness different from jtreg and had different build and execution >> schemes, some parts couldn't be easily translated to jtreg, so tests might >> have actions or pieces of code which look weird. In a long term, we are >> planning to rework them. > > I'm also assuming that to help the open sourcing of these tests, most > comments will likely be deferred until later? If so, that is fine with me. y, unless it is something very important and cost of delaying changes is high, I'd prefer to defer all comments/improvements till later. > > On 05/08/2018 12:35 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote: >> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199370 >> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/8199370/webrev.00/index.html > > Many of the tests are a bit cryptic, but that can be refactored later. Could > you please file bugs for the two tests written in shell? Particularly > parOld/test.sh should be trivial to rewrite in Java. sure, I've filed 8203239 and 8203238. > > It seems like a lot of tests contains a TEST.properties file with the content > `exclusiveAccess.dirs=.`. Could this become the default value somewhere, so > we don't need all those TEST.properties files? y, but this will require finding a most top directory whose all tests have this TEST.properties file and it will also make it harder to understand how a test is executed. there was/is ongoing discussing w/ Jon on moving 'exclusiveAccess' to test description. anyhow I've filed an RFE to clean that up -- 8203241. > > Thanks, > Erik > >> Thanks, >> -- Igor
