RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-06 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Hi, Could you please review the suggested fox for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 There has been a bit of discussion on jigsaw-dev, but it perhaps make sense to include core-libs-dev. There have been some fixes since the review was published, so we are now at revision #4: ht

RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-07 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Hi, Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 To recap what has happened in the past. 1. An attempt was made to enhance jdk.testlibrary.ProcessTools class to support some filtering java and VM options. That implementation came out really overloaded (check execute

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-06 Thread Mandy Chung
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: > > Hi, > > Could you please review the suggested fox for: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 > > There has been a bit of discussion on jigsaw-dev, but it perhaps make sense > to include core-libs-dev. > > There

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-08 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Thank you, Mandy! Comments inline. > On Mar 6, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: > > >> On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Could you please review the suggested fox for: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 >> >> There has been

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-08 Thread Mandy Chung
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: >> Also specifying the target explicitly makes the test clearer what it does. >> >> .addExports(“java.base/jdk.internal.reflect”, “ALL-UNNAMED”) > > Makes sense. > > I hope though that you are not against having a constant for “AL

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-10 Thread Dmitry Fazunenko
Hi Igor, thanks for the good summary of our discussion. Shura, I agree with Igor position. To implement VM Launching specific (Verundy project) we don't need any Task functionality, so I don't have any comments on that. VM and JDK have a lot of common in dealing with output. Representation

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-10 Thread Igor Ignatyev
Hi Shura, > Quite recently the suggested improvement was discussed with a few folks from > hotspot team where the same or a similar implementation could be reused. I am > CCing Igor and Dima to comment. Right, Dima and I would really love to reuse part of this library and that’s more important

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2017-03-20 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Igor, let me capture our offline conversation. The design you are suggesting is aimed to allow to chain methods which check different outputs: stderr, stdout and other possible artifacts of a process execution. To that end, 1. the method which you call stdout(Consumer) should really the called

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-10 Thread Alan Bateman
On 07/10/2016 21:24, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: Hi, Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 To recap what has happened in the past. 1. An attempt was made to enhance jdk.testlibrary.ProcessTools class to support some filtering java and VM options. That im

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-11 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 07/10/2016 21:24, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 >> >> To recap what has happened in the past. >> >> 1. An attempt was made to enhance jdk.testlib

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-11 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: > > >> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> On 07/10/2016 21:24, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523 >>> >>> To recap wh

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-14 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Could you please take another look? I have added more options, and fixed other things you have pointed out. I have also picked up a couple more tests to cover the newly added methods. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.02/ Shura > On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Alan Bateman w

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-17 Thread Alan Bateman
On 14/10/2016 23:26, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: Could you please take another look? I have added more options, and fixed other things you have pointed out. I have also picked up a couple more tests to cover the newly added methods. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.02/

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-21 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Alan, This is a newer version: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/ Shura > On Oct 17, 2016, at 12:16 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 14/10/2016 23:26, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: > >> Could you please take another look? >> >> I have added more options, and fixed other

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-22 Thread Alan Bateman
On 21/10/2016 22:07, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: Alan, This is a newer version: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/ The usages looks good in this version, would be interesting to get other opinions (although this isn't specifically module options, this is really more

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-25 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 3:06 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 21/10/2016 22:07, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: > >> Alan, >> >> This is a newer version: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/ >> > The usages looks good in this version, would be interesting to get other > op

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-26 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 3:06 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 21/10/2016 22:07, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: > >> Alan, >> >> This is a newer version: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/ >> > The usages looks good in this version, would be interesting to get other > op

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-26 Thread Alan Bateman
On 26/10/2016 19:33, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: : Like this: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.04/ It's all subjective but I prefer: .addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED") .addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.reflect=ALL-UNNAMED") to: .addExports("java

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-26 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 26/10/2016 19:33, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: > >> : >> Like this: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.04/ >> > It's all subjective but I prefer: > > .addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED") > .ad

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-10-31 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Alan, > On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: > > >> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> On 26/10/2016 19:33, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: >> >>> : >>> Like this: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.04/ >>> >> It's all su

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-11-01 Thread Alan Bateman
On 31/10/2016 21:39, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: : Which syntax would be better? 1. Requiring explicit ALL-UNNAMED .addExports("java.base", “jdk.internal.misc”, ALL_UNNAMED) .addExports("java.base", "jdk.internal.reflect”, ALL_UNNAMED) 2. Treating ALL-UNNAMED as a default .addExports("java.

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-11-01 Thread Alan Bateman
On 01/11/2016 10:23, Alan Bateman wrote: : .addExports("java.base", "jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED") .addOpens("java.base", "jdk.internal.misc=m1,m2") Oops, a typo here, I meant this of course: .addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.misc", "ALL-UNNAMED") .addOpens("java.base/jdk.internal.misc",

Re: RFR: 8159523. Fix tests depending on absence of -limitmods in VM arguments.

2016-11-01 Thread Alexandre (Shura) Iline
Alan, For me, having module and package parameters separate makes it a lot easier: public JavaTask addExports(String module, String package, String… targetModules) Consider this: .addExports(JAVA_BASE, JDK_MISC, ALL_UNNAMED) where, needless to say, JAVA_BASE and JDK_MISC are constants defined in