n 22 Apr 2016, at 10:07, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 09:47, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> The jdk.unsupported module was added to the LimitModsTest.java test
>> temporally, until the problematic dependency from the java.logging
>> module on the jdk.unsupported module could be resolved. This is
>> now resolved, see 8153158 [1].
>>
>> It was an oversight of the changes for 8153158 that this test was not
>> updated to remove the, now superfluous, dependency the
>> jdk.unsupported module.
>>
>> diff --git a/test/tools/launcher/modules/limitmods/LimitModsTest.java
>> b/test/tools/launcher/modules/limitmods/LimitModsTest.java
>> --- a/test/tools/launcher/modules/limitmods/LimitModsTest.java
>> +++ b/test/tools/launcher/modules/limitmods/LimitModsTest.java
>> @@ -103,10 +103,10 @@
>> public void testWithAddMods() throws Exception {
>> int exitValue;
>> - // java -limitmods java.base -addmods java.logging,jdk.unsupported
>> -listmods
>> + // java -limitmods java.base -addmods java.logging -listmods
>> exitValue = executeTestJava("-limitmods", "java.base",
>> "-addmods",
>> - "java.logging,jdk.unsupported", //
>> TODO: add bug No.
>> + "java.logging",
>>
> This looks okay but would you mind changing it to
> "-addmods", "java.logging"
>
> which I think it how we had it originally. In these tests then there are a
> list of options + values and it's just a bit easier to read this way.
Yes, of course. My intention was to restore the file to its original
state. I’ll do this before pushing.
Thanks.
-Chris.
