Hi Mandy, here is the webrev which addresses your comments:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247592.02/ Thanks, -Aleksei On 22/07/2020 02:26, Mandy Chung wrote: > Hi Aleksei, > >> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247592.01/ > > This refactoring seems okay. I would suggest to change the run method > to return an int or boolean to indicate the test passed or failed. > The caller of the run method (i.e. runTest will add to the failedTests > list if the return value indicates test failure. No need to pass the > failedTest list to the run method as an argument. > > Typo in line 90: s/bug got/but got/ > > Otherwise, looks okay. > > Mandy > > On 7/21/20 10:37 AM, Aleksei Voitylov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> gently reminiding about this simple test refactoring. The patch still >> applies cleanly. >> >> -Aleksei >> >> On 24/06/2020 11:44, Aleksei Voitylov wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to refactor test/jdk/tools/launcher/Test7029048.java, make the >>> logic easier to follow and remove some magic numbers from the test: >>> >>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8247592 >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247592.01/ >>> >>> Testing: the test passes on Linux x86, Linux x86_64, Linux ARM, Linux >>> AArch64, Linux PPC, Windows x86, Windows x86_64, Mac, AIX. Special >>> thanks to SAP team for helping test on AIX. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Aleksei >>> >
