On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:29:10 GMT, Jiangli Zhou <jian...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this change that adds the `jdk.static` VMProps. It can be used >> to skip tests not for running on static JDK. >> >> This also adds a new WhiteBox native method, >> `jdk.test.whitebox.WhiteBox.isStatic()`, which is used by VMProps to >> determine if it's static at runtime. >> >> `@requires !jdk.static` is added in >> `test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/modules/ModulesSymLink.java` to skip running the >> test on static JDK. This test uses `bin/jlink`, which is not provided on >> static JDK. There are other tests that require tools in `bin/`. Those are >> not modified by the current PR to skip running on static JDK. Those can be >> done after the current change is fully discussed and reviewed/approved. > > Jiangli Zhou has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. Hello Jiangli, the change to introduce a `@requires` property for identifying a static JDK looks OK to me. > @requires !jdk.static is added in > test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/modules/ModulesSymLink.java to skip running the > test on static JDK. This test uses bin/jlink, which is not provided on static > JDK. There are other tests that require tools in bin/. Those are not modified > by the current PR to skip running on static JDK. Those can be done after the > current change is fully discussed and reviewed/approved. This part however feels odd. Updating this (and other tests in future) to use the `@requires !jdk.static` to identify the presence or absence of a specific tool in the JDK installation doesn't seem right. Perhaps they should instead rely on a tool-specific property (like maybe `@requires jdk.tool.jlink`)? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23528#issuecomment-2667657019
