Im happy to update the copyright years before merging my changes. I’ll not put up a separate webrev for that though, if that’s okay.
Attila. > On 2020. Aug 21., at 07:32, Sundararajan Athijegannathan > <sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com> wrote: > > Looks good. > > Minor comment: not sure if you need to update copyright year on tests - > especially because there have been changes like package removal (flat). > > -Sundar > > >> On 2020. Aug 20., at 22:20, Attila Szegedi <szege...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> long time since I actively popped up here. I’m taking some time to maintain >> Dynalink, eyeing Java 16 for the changes. Since the nashorn-dev list is >> (presumably? I haven’t bother checking) defunct, I asked around and Sundar >> suggested core-libs-dev is the right list to post review requests, so here I >> am. >> >> I plan to do the maintenance in three small stages, and this is the first >> one. The stages are: >> - restore some Dynalink tests (they were thrown out with Nashorn) >> - modernize/lint the Dynalink codebase (it was written for Java 7 originally >> for… reasons, and by now it could have diamonds, lambdas and so on) >> - add support for records (the real end goal here.) >> >> As stage 1, please review JDK-8252124 "Restore Dynalink tests" at >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8252124/webrev.jdk16/index.html> for >> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252124>. >> >> It restores those Dynalink tests that are not dependent on Nashorn, so I >> again have a bit of a coverage as I work on it. They were taken from >> jdk14/test/nashorn/src/jdk/dynalink and moved into jdk/test/jdk/jdk/dynalink >> as proper jtreg-run tests. I flattened the package hierarchy into just the >> unnamed package (which seems to be the usual way of writing tests in the >> neighboring directories.) I added the total of 8 test classes to the >> “jdk_other” test group, it seemed the appropriate group. >> >> Thanks, >> Attila. >> >
