Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: > > Pushed after a de-tabbification and verifying the set of tests to run was the > same before and after the update. It looks good. Mandy
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
On 3/30/2016 5:34 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev since the tab expansion is different than in a text editor.) Thanks for doing it. Looks fine with me. Just to mention it: these few lines are somewhat strange (shorter test name has more whitespace) that you may want to double check. Ok to push what you have. ! java/nio/file/WatchService/Basic.java 7158947 solaris-all Solaris 11 ! java/nio/file/WatchService/MayFlies.java 7158947 solaris-all Solaris 11 ! java/nio/file/WatchService/LotsOfEvents.java 7158947 solaris-all Solaris 11 Pushed after a de-tabbification and verifying the set of tests to run was the same before and after the update. Thanks, -Joe
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your > correction to the commented-out test: > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 > > I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more > characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev since the tab expansion is > different than in a text editor.) > Thanks for doing it. Looks fine with me. Just to mention it: these few lines are somewhat strange (shorter test name has more whitespace) that you may want to double check. Ok to push what you have. ! java/nio/file/WatchService/Basic.java 7158947 solaris-all Solaris 11 ! java/nio/file/WatchService/MayFlies.java 7158947 solaris-all Solaris 11 ! java/nio/file/WatchService/LotsOfEvents.java 7158947 solaris-all Solaris 11 Mandy
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Hi Sergey, The thinking is the reformatted file, with the bug on the same line as the test, will allow in the future better reporting and analysis of problem list entries with information from the bug database. Thanks for the review; HTH, -Joe On 3/30/2016 5:02 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: The fix looks fine to me. can you please clarify what "enabling better reporting" from the bug description means? Where this information will be reported? On 31.03.16 2:48, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev since the tab expansion is different than in a text editor.) Thanks, -Joe On 3/29/2016 12:31 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java linux-i586,windows-i586 Is this test accidentally removed? Other than this, looks okay. The "#" lines are comments so I was removing a commented out line. (I assumed, but did not verify, the line for this test was a leftover artifact of the recent Jigsaw merge.) I missed “#” since this test should be excluded (some error might have been creeped in before the integration) This test needs to be added back in the problem list. I’ll create a changeset. Nit: it’d be good to have most of bug ids aligned in the same column start. Here are a few ones: 210 sun/security/krb5/auto/Unreachable.java 7164518 macosx-all no PortUnreachableException on Mac 212 java/security/KeyPairGenerator/SolarisShortDSA.java 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 213 sun/security/tools/keytool/standard.sh 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 346 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8080165,8085982 generic-all 348 java/util/BitSet/BitSetStreamTest.java 8079538 generic-all 360 sun/tools/jmap/heapconfig/JMapHeapConfigTest.java 8072131,8132452 generic-all 370 sun/tools/jinfo/JInfoSanityTest.java 8059035 generic-all I was trying to avoid introducing lots of spacing changes in an attempt to make the patch easier to review, but I can look over these cases again. That’d be good. Thanks Mandy
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
The fix looks fine to me. can you please clarify what "enabling better reporting" from the bug description means? Where this information will be reported? On 31.03.16 2:48, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev since the tab expansion is different than in a text editor.) Thanks, -Joe On 3/29/2016 12:31 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java linux-i586,windows-i586 Is this test accidentally removed? Other than this, looks okay. The "#" lines are comments so I was removing a commented out line. (I assumed, but did not verify, the line for this test was a leftover artifact of the recent Jigsaw merge.) I missed “#” since this test should be excluded (some error might have been creeped in before the integration) This test needs to be added back in the problem list. I’ll create a changeset. Nit: it’d be good to have most of bug ids aligned in the same column start. Here are a few ones: 210 sun/security/krb5/auto/Unreachable.java 7164518 macosx-all no PortUnreachableException on Mac 212 java/security/KeyPairGenerator/SolarisShortDSA.java 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 213 sun/security/tools/keytool/standard.sh 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 346 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8080165,8085982 generic-all 348 java/util/BitSet/BitSetStreamTest.java 8079538 generic-all 360 sun/tools/jmap/heapconfig/JMapHeapConfigTest.java 8072131,8132452 generic-all 370 sun/tools/jinfo/JInfoSanityTest.java 8059035 generic-all I was trying to avoid introducing lots of spacing changes in an attempt to make the patch easier to review, but I can look over these cases again. That’d be good. Thanks Mandy -- Best regards, Sergey.
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev since the tab expansion is different than in a text editor.) Thanks, -Joe On 3/29/2016 12:31 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java linux-i586,windows-i586 Is this test accidentally removed? Other than this, looks okay. The "#" lines are comments so I was removing a commented out line. (I assumed, but did not verify, the line for this test was a leftover artifact of the recent Jigsaw merge.) I missed “#” since this test should be excluded (some error might have been creeped in before the integration) This test needs to be added back in the problem list. I’ll create a changeset. Nit: it’d be good to have most of bug ids aligned in the same column start. Here are a few ones: 210 sun/security/krb5/auto/Unreachable.java 7164518 macosx-all no PortUnreachableException on Mac 212 java/security/KeyPairGenerator/SolarisShortDSA.java 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 213 sun/security/tools/keytool/standard.sh 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 346 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8080165,8085982 generic-all 348 java/util/BitSet/BitSetStreamTest.java 8079538 generic-all 360 sun/tools/jmap/heapconfig/JMapHeapConfigTest.java 8072131,8132452 generic-all 370 sun/tools/jinfo/JInfoSanityTest.java 8059035 generic-all I was trying to avoid introducing lots of spacing changes in an attempt to make the patch easier to review, but I can look over these cases again. That’d be good. Thanks Mandy
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and >>> incorporating the earlier feedback. >>> >>>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 >>> >> # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java >> linux-i586,windows-i586 >> >> Is this test accidentally removed? Other than this, looks okay. > > The "#" lines are comments so I was removing a commented out line. (I > assumed, but did not verify, the line for this test was a leftover artifact > of the recent Jigsaw merge.) I missed “#” since this test should be excluded (some error might have been creeped in before the integration) This test needs to be added back in the problem list. I’ll create a changeset. > >> >> Nit: it’d be good to have most of bug ids aligned in the same column start. >> Here are a few ones: >> >> 210 sun/security/krb5/auto/Unreachable.java 7164518 macosx-all no >> PortUnreachableException on Mac >> 212 java/security/KeyPairGenerator/SolarisShortDSA.java 7041639 solaris-all >> Solaris DSA keypair generation bug >> 213 sun/security/tools/keytool/standard.sh 7041639 solaris-all >> Solaris DSA keypair generation bug >> 346 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8080165,8085982 generic-all >> 348 java/util/BitSet/BitSetStreamTest.java 8079538 generic-all >> 360 sun/tools/jmap/heapconfig/JMapHeapConfigTest.java 8072131,8132452 >> generic-all >> 370 sun/tools/jinfo/JInfoSanityTest.java 8059035 >> generic-all >> >> > > I was trying to avoid introducing lots of spacing changes in an attempt to > make the patch easier to review, but I can look over these cases again. That’d be good. Thanks Mandy
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Hi Mandy, On 3/28/2016 8:48 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java linux-i586,windows-i586 Is this test accidentally removed? Other than this, looks okay. The "#" lines are comments so I was removing a commented out line. (I assumed, but did not verify, the line for this test was a leftover artifact of the recent Jigsaw merge.) Nit: it’d be good to have most of bug ids aligned in the same column start. Here are a few ones: 210 sun/security/krb5/auto/Unreachable.java 7164518 macosx-all no PortUnreachableException on Mac 212 java/security/KeyPairGenerator/SolarisShortDSA.java 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 213 sun/security/tools/keytool/standard.sh 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 346 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8080165,8085982 generic-all 348 java/util/BitSet/BitSetStreamTest.java 8079538 generic-all 360 sun/tools/jmap/heapconfig/JMapHeapConfigTest.java 8072131,8132452 generic-all 370 sun/tools/jinfo/JInfoSanityTest.java 8059035 generic-all I was trying to avoid introducing lots of spacing changes in an attempt to make the patch easier to review, but I can look over these cases again. Thanks, -Joe
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: > > Hello, > > New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and > incorporating the earlier feedback. > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 > # tools/jimage/JImageTest.java linux-i586,windows-i586 Is this test accidentally removed? Other than this, looks okay. Nit: it’d be good to have most of bug ids aligned in the same column start. Here are a few ones: 210 sun/security/krb5/auto/Unreachable.java 7164518 macosx-all no PortUnreachableException on Mac 212 java/security/KeyPairGenerator/SolarisShortDSA.java 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 213 sun/security/tools/keytool/standard.sh 7041639 solaris-all Solaris DSA keypair generation bug 346 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8080165,8085982 generic-all 348 java/util/BitSet/BitSetStreamTest.java 8079538 generic-all 360 sun/tools/jmap/heapconfig/JMapHeapConfigTest.java 8072131,8132452 generic-all 370 sun/tools/jinfo/JInfoSanityTest.java 8059035 generic-all Mandy
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Hello, New iteration of the webrev updated after the Jigsaw integration and incorporating the earlier feedback. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.1 Thanks, -Joe On 3/16/2016 4:52 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Jon, Noted; I'll make that improvement in the next round. Thanks for pointing this out, -Joe On 3/16/2016 4:50 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: On 03/11/2016 07:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe Joe, You can use a comma-separated list when multiple bugs are involved. The only restriction is, no embedded whitespace within the list 342 # Also 8080165 343 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8085982 generic-all can be 343 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8085982,8080165 generic-all -- Jon
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Hi Jon, Noted; I'll make that improvement in the next round. Thanks for pointing this out, -Joe On 3/16/2016 4:50 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: On 03/11/2016 07:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe Joe, You can use a comma-separated list when multiple bugs are involved. The only restriction is, no embedded whitespace within the list 342 # Also 8080165 343 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8085982 generic-all can be 343 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8085982,8080165 generic-all -- Jon
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
On 03/11/2016 07:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe Joe, You can use a comma-separated list when multiple bugs are involved. The only restriction is, no embedded whitespace within the list 342 # Also 8080165 343 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8085982 generic-all can be 343 java/util/Arrays/ParallelPrefix.java 8085982,8080165 generic-all -- Jon
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Just a follow-up, to avoid causing additional merge headaches, I'll revise the patch to make this change once the next round of Jigsaw changes get back in jdk9/dev (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2016-March/003877.html). Thanks, -Joe On 3/12/2016 1:28 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote: Looks good Joe. -Chris On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:28, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Looks good to me. --Sean On 03/11/2016 10:28 PM, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Looks good Joe. -Chris > On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:28, joe darcy wrote: > > Hello, > > As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly > include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better > reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of > putting the bug number in a comment. > > Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ > > I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions > of the problem list. > > Thanks, > > -Joe
Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Looks fine. On 12.03.16 6:28, joe darcy wrote: Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe -- Best regards, Sergey.
JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list
Hello, As Jon Gibbons has noted off-list, the problem list entries can directly include the bug number associated with the test in question, enabling better reporting. This format should be used rather than the current convention of putting the bug number in a comment. Please review the webrev to adopt the revised format for the problem list: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.0/ I've verified jtreg produces the same test list with the old and new versions of the problem list. Thanks, -Joe
