Hi Sean, thanks for looking at this. I agree. Will remove othervm...
Best regards Christoph > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com> > Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2019 17:43 > To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>; OpenJDK Dev list > <security-dev@openjdk.java.net>; OpenJDK Network Dev list <net- > d...@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR 8217657: Move the test for default value of > jdk.includeInExceptions into own test > > I don't think you really need to run the test with the othervm flag, > unless you are concerned other tests may be setting this property and > (incorrectly) not running in a separate VM, which would be a bug in my > opinion. Well, then maybe you should run it in othervm just in case. > Otherwise, looks ok to me. > > --Sean > > On 1/23/19 11:05 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote: > > Hi, > > > > please review a small test update. > > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217657 > > > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8217657.0/ > > > > I'd like to move the test for the correct default value of security > > property "jdk.includeInExceptions" into an own testcase in the > > jdk.security area. This seems a bit more natural than to hide this check > > in a java/net specific test and will help finding/maintaining tests when > > the (default-)value for that property changes. For instance new values > > get added or other OpenJDK builds have different defaults (e.g. > SAPMachine). > > > > Thanks > > > > Christoph > >
