The change is just busy-work for everyone, so I'll take care of it.
-- Jon
On 3/11/19 5:11 PM, Derek Thomson wrote:
Thanks! I'm actually working on a webrev including that change now,
but I probably won't get JC to upload it until tomorrow at this point.
I'm happy for you to fix that, if it's faster for you.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:09 PM Jonathan Gibbons
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
OK, this looks good, and can sponsor this change,
I'll take care of the addContent for you if you like.
-- Jon
On 3/11/19 2:48 PM, Derek Thomson wrote:
Jonathan - I have an update of this fix in
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8219691/webrev.01/
I didn't add a new test as the coverage was already good, lots of
failure at least, and equal to what was tested for the previous
behaviour.

The tests are fast and I do appreciate that - I can run them
semi-continuously. They also didn't suffer from really silly
brittleness (because they don't diff entire files I think) and
are pretty clear. I find the output a little confusing, there are
a couple of minor tweaks I could make that will help I think.
Would help *me* at least - stay tuned.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jonathan Gibbons
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
OK, thanks for the update. The comment/behavior is noted,
though. I've tried hard to make it easier to debug test
failures, and first impressions from a "newcomer" are always
valuable.
For my part, I find that running all javadoc tests is "fairly
fast" and running any one test is "very fast", so it becomes
practical to work through the first few reported issues in
any test failure, and rerun.
-- Jon
On 3/7/19 2:23 PM, Derek Thomson wrote:
Thanks Jonathan. This might have been a false alarm - I'm
finding that as I fix the errors caused by my change the
other failures in the same test seem to just disappear, even
though they were (to my eye) matching against unrelated
sections of the HTML. Let me finish up, and I bet it'll be
fine after all.
If any are left broken after that, I'll raise them here.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jonathan Gibbons
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 3/7/19 2:01 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>
>
> If you are seeing tests that fail, I suggest you
discuss them here
> first, before embarking on any additional campaign to
get them
> working. Given the number of CI systems building and
testing OpenJDK
> on all platforms, I would be very surprised to hear of
tests failing
> in an unmodified repo.
>
... I should be more specific: if you are seeing tests
failing for
reasons unrelated to your change ....
-- Jon
