On 9/14/16 04:01, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Alexander,
This looks good.
Thank you for developing this test coverage!
Minor comment:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akulyakh/8165017_03/test/serviceability/jdwp/AllModulesCommandTest.java.frames.html
33 * @summary Tests AllModules JDWP command
Need to also list other JDWP commands that are tested:
CommandSet ModuleReference=18 commands: Name=1, ClassLoader=2,
CanRead=3
CommandSet ReferenceType=2 commands: Module=19
I fonder if we have to include the jdkjdwp.agent module into the
@modules list.
Correction: jdk.jdwp.agent module
Thanks,
Serguei
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/14/16 03:02, Alexander Kulyakhtin wrote:
Hi,
Could I, please, have some feedback regarding the RFR below?
Best regards,
Alexander
----- Original Message -----
From:[email protected]
To:[email protected],[email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:06:13 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
Subject: RFR: 8165017: Additional test coverage of the JDWP CLASSLOADER and
MODULE commands
Hi,
Could you, please, review this test-only change
CR:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165017 "Additional test coverage of
the JDWP CLASSLOADER and MODULE commands"
Webrev:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akulyakh/8165017_03/
The verification of the new JDWP 'MODULE' command has been added to the
existing test.
The test now verifies that, among the classes visible to the classloader of the
'java.base' module, there are, indeed, classes that report the 'java.base'
module as the module they belong to.
The test verifies this by sending the 'MODULE' JDWP command passing the class
id as a command parameter and checking the reply.
Best regards,
Alexander
