On 06/09/2018 17:19, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
JC,
thanks for your review!
Core-libs team,
as the majority of changed tests are core-libs tests, I'd really appreciate if
someone from core-libs (preferably a Reviewer) could review the patch.
I skimmed through a sample of the test changes and was
Hi Igor,
I do not see any issues with this refactoring.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/6/18 09:19, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
JC,
thanks for your review!
Core-libs team,
as the majority of changed tests are core-libs tests, I'd really appreciate if
someone from core-libs (preferably a Reviewer) could
JC,
thanks for your review!
Core-libs team,
as the majority of changed tests are core-libs tests, I'd really appreciate if
someone from core-libs (preferably a Reviewer) could review the patch.
for the record, [1] is the latest version of webrev.
[1]
Hi JC,
> On Sep 5, 2018, at 2:59 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> I like this much better! A few more comments:
>
> -
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8210112/webrev.0-1/test/jdk/lib/testlibrary/OutputAnalyzerTest.java.udiff.html
>
>
Hi Igor,
I like this much better! A few more comments:
-
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8210112/webrev.0-1/test/jdk/lib/testlibrary/OutputAnalyzerTest.java.udiff.html
-> If the shouldMatch call fails, it throws an exception, why not just
let that fail test, why are you catching and
Hi JC,
thanks for reviewing this! I agree w/ both your comments and have updated the
code very similarly to your suggestion.
I've also noticed that j.t.l.p.OutputAnalyzer::shouldMatchByLine method family
is a bit different from other should* (and strange), besides checking that the
lines
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8210112/webrev.00/index.html
> 2375 lines changed: 322 ins; 1662 del; 391 mod
Hi all,
could you please review the patch which removes jdk.testlibrary.ProcessTools
and its friends and replaces all theirs usages w/ corresponding classes from
