On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 08:44:29 GMT, Leo Korinth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This pull request renames `createJavaProcessBuilder` to
>> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` and renames `createTestJvm` to
>> `createTestJavaProcessBuilder`. Both are implemented through a private
>> `createJavaProcessBuilder`. It also updates the java doc.
>>
>> This is so that it should be harder to by mistake use
>> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` that is problematic because it will
>> not forward JVM flags to the tested JVM.
>
> Leo Korinth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> fix copyright year and indentation
Would it be okay if we handle the new method documentation in a separate pull
request?
After applying your changes, I also noted that the existing description `The
command line will be like: {test.jdk}/bin/java {test.vm.opts} {test.java.opts}
cmds` is not only incorrect (or at least incomplete), but now also clashes with
the added description. I then removed the sentence, but after I did that I also
found out that similar wording exist in `executeTestJvm` and I fear that if I
continue to pull strings, I will create more and more changes that you will
have opinions on.
Is it all right if we push what we have now, and that I create a new pull
requests with these improvements in documentation that are actually not related
to the changes in this pull request?
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15452#issuecomment-1781359450
