Looks good to me now.
/Erik
On 2017-03-03 10:39, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
I have an updated webrev.
Here is a differential webrev showing the changes compared to the
previous webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8176084-introduce-run-test/webrev.02
And here is a full webrev showin
I have an updated webrev.
Here is a differential webrev showing the changes compared to the
previous webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8176084-introduce-run-test/webrev.02
And here is a full webrev showing all changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8176084-introduce-run-test/
I don't know if it helps or not, but jtreg defines the following exit codes:
0: OK
1: No tests to run ... none specified, or no tests to run in the
specified set
2: Some tests failed ... jtreg ran the test and but the test did not pass
3: Some tests had an error ... jtreg could not run the tes
On 2017-03-02 15:37, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2017-03-02 14:48, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2017-03-02 12:19, Erik Joelsson wrote:
I don't think I like this part. It's not uncommon to expect non zero
return when tests are failing even in developer sessions. If we are
to ever convert to us
On 2017-03-02 14:48, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2017-03-02 12:19, Erik Joelsson wrote:
I don't think I like this part. It's not uncommon to expect non zero
return when tests are failing even in developer sessions. If we are
to ever convert to using this new run-test for automated systems,
On 2017-03-02 12:19, Erik Joelsson wrote:
I don't think I like this part. It's not uncommon to expect non zero
return when tests are failing even in developer sessions. If we are to
ever convert to using this new run-test for automated systems, which
we really should, it must return non zero
I don't think I like this part. It's not uncommon to expect non zero
return when tests are failing even in developer sessions. If we are to
ever convert to using this new run-test for automated systems, which we
really should, it must return non zero on failures.
I'm guessing you added this to
Oh no, not that one either? This time I made sure it was sent as HTML.
It's probably the openjdk mailer that converts it. *sigh* :-(
Here's the markdown source, it's probably more readable than the mangled
mess that got through before.
# TL;DR.
First of all, this does not change or remove an
I'm not sure why all the html formatting was stripped there. Let's give
it a new try:
TL;DR.
First of all, this does not change or remove any current functionality,
it only adds new.
This new way of running tests is developer-centric. It assumes that you
have built a jdk locally and want
On 2017-03-02 09:27, Erik Helin wrote:
Hi Magnus,
thank you so much for doing this patch! Having a convenient way to run
tests from the Makefiles is something I have wanted for a very long
time :) Unfortunately I don't have the required Makefile knowledge to
review this, but if I can help ou
On 2017-03-02 08:54, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
On 2/03/2017 5:42 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
A long-time issue has been a consistent way for developers to
effortlessly run tests on local builds. This patch introduces a new,
alternative "run-test" target, which allows for a smoother dev
Hello Magnus,
Overall this is excellent work! But I still have some opinions and
questions.
I think the implementation of the caching mechanism is a bit weird and
it will not handle changes to jtreg test groups (or other test name
definition files). I don't think we can expect people to have
Hi Magnus,
thank you so much for doing this patch! Having a convenient way to run
tests from the Makefiles is something I have wanted for a very long time
:) Unfortunately I don't have the required Makefile knowledge to review
this, but if I can help out with testing the patch, just let me kno
Hi Magnus,
On 2/03/2017 5:42 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
A long-time issue has been a consistent way for developers to
effortlessly run tests on local builds. This patch introduces a new,
alternative "run-test" target, which allows for a smoother developer
experience in running tests. It does
A long-time issue has been a consistent way for developers to
effortlessly run tests on local builds. This patch introduces a new,
alternative "run-test" target, which allows for a smoother developer
experience in running tests. It does not modify or remove any existing
ways of running tests, w
15 matches
Mail list logo
