> On Jul 1, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > <alexandre.il...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Pleas review the new version of the fix. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8158670/webrev.01/ > > I have executed the changed test successfully on linux, windows, mac os x and > solaris.
I have also executed it manually on my laptop with most relevant values for -limitmods. Shura > > Shura > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline >> <alexandre.il...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> It's not like the test silently passes as the test still covers the >>> cross-platform modules. >>> The way I view this is that the platform=specific modules are "optional" >>> and we update the expected result by detecting their presence (or the not). >>> It's not a hack or workaround, but rather an enhancement for the test to >>> handle different images. >> >> Oh … that makes more sense. I mis-understood it originally. >> >> Let me fix it like this. >> >> Shura >> >>> >>> Just my .02, >>> Valerie >>> >>> On 6/29/2016 10:22 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: >>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the purpose of this test is to test the ordering (see the initial >>>>> bug which this test is for: JDK-6997010). >>>>> >>>>> The original test already detects the OS and will skip certain providers >>>>> accordingly. >>>>> Instead of splitting the test into multiple platform-specific tests, >>>>> maybe we can keep the original test but add module-presence checking? Is >>>>> there API available to query if certain module are present? >>>> ModuleFinder.ofSystem().find(String). >>>> >>>> We can have only the cross-platform modules listed in @modules and make >>>> the test to pass silently if the required platform-specific modules are >>>> not present. >>>> >>>> So, for example, on windows, if the test would be executed against an >>>> image which have no jdk.crypto.mscapi, the test will not run any checks >>>> and report pass. >>>> >>>> This would help to avoid the additional test creation, but it will add >>>> another silently passing test, which is less clean. >>>> >>>> Mandy? >>>> >>>> Shura >>>> >>>>> If yes, then we can leave out the platform-specific providers from the >>>>> @modules line and skip the providers if either the OS does not match or >>>>> the module is not present. >>>>> >>>>> If we can't query what modules are available, then we may have to think >>>>> of something else. >>>>> Valerie >>>>> >>>>> On 6/27/2016 12:27 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >>>>>> I’m including security-dev which would be a better list to review this >>>>>> test fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> Valerie, >>>>>> Does this test have to be order-sensitive? I think this test would be >>>>>> cleaner to make it order-insensitive and simply test the security >>>>>> provider initialization. >>>>>> >>>>>> See my comments below. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline >>>>>>> <alexandre.il...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please take a look on a suggested for for the >>>>>>> java/lang/SecurityManager/CheckSecurityProvider.java test. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The test in question depend on a list of modules, some of them are >>>>>>> platform-specific. Listing all the dependencies in one test is causing >>>>>>> the test to be skipped on every platform. In an offline conversation it >>>>>>> was decided that it is better to split this tests into a few tests to >>>>>>> declare the per-platform module dependencies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8158670 >>>>>>> The suggested fix: >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8158670/webrev.00/ >>>>>> The copyright header start year of the new tests should be 2016. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would suggest to make CheckSecurityProvide a platform-neutral test, >>>>>> i.e., >>>>>> - drop @requires >>>>>> - make line 94-97 to ignore the platform-dependent provider if it’s >>>>>> present in the white list >>>>>> >>>>>> If we could make this test order-insensitive, it’d be cleaner to >>>>>> maintain a platform-neutral list of security providers and one list for >>>>>> the platform-dependent security providers for each platform. Just an >>>>>> idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mandy >>>>>> >>> >> >
