On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:22:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
>> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
>> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
>> SkippedExcep
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:22:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
>> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
>> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
>> SkippedExcep
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:22:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
>> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
>> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
>> SkippedExcep
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:22:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
>> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
>> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
>> SkippedExcep
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 06:50:19 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Seems fine. My only query/concern here is how reliable/stable this codesign
> verbose output is?
>
> Thanks, David
Hard to say, but this seems like the best solution at the moment. We can always
adapt/adjust if needed.
>
> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
> SkippedException is thrown, and the test passes without doing anything. T
