Thanks Mandy, that would be much appreciated!
On 23/07/2020 07:24, Mandy Chung wrote: > Hi Aleksei, > > Looks good. I can sponsor this. > > Mandy > > On 7/22/20 1:32 AM, Aleksei Voitylov wrote: >> Hi Mandy, >> >> here is the webrev which addresses your comments: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247592.02/ >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Aleksei >> >> On 22/07/2020 02:26, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> Hi Aleksei, >>> >>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247592.01/ >>> This refactoring seems okay. I would suggest to change the run method >>> to return an int or boolean to indicate the test passed or failed. >>> The caller of the run method (i.e. runTest will add to the failedTests >>> list if the return value indicates test failure. No need to pass the >>> failedTest list to the run method as an argument. >>> >>> Typo in line 90: s/bug got/but got/ >>> >>> Otherwise, looks okay. >>> >>> Mandy >>> >>> On 7/21/20 10:37 AM, Aleksei Voitylov wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> gently reminiding about this simple test refactoring. The patch still >>>> applies cleanly. >>>> >>>> -Aleksei >>>> >>>> On 24/06/2020 11:44, Aleksei Voitylov wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to refactor test/jdk/tools/launcher/Test7029048.java, make the >>>>> logic easier to follow and remove some magic numbers from the test: >>>>> >>>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8247592 >>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247592.01/ >>>>> >>>>> Testing: the test passes on Linux x86, Linux x86_64, Linux ARM, Linux >>>>> AArch64, Linux PPC, Windows x86, Windows x86_64, Mac, AIX. Special >>>>> thanks to SAP team for helping test on AIX. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -Aleksei >>>>> >
