On 05/16/2016 12:36 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>For tests then Jon will be pushing the updated MineField to jdk9/dev soon. We
need to go over the new options and get javac and the runtime consistent. I think
we want it so that empty elements in the new options are ignored, leaving class
path for legacy reasons.
Yes we should add new tests to ensure the javac and runtime consistency of the
new options.
Mandy
To give context, the "minefield" term refers to a specific complex test
in the langtools repo to compare option handling between java and javac.
The conceptual minefield has forked. I have been working on a new
minefield framework to support minefield-type tests for all the new
module-related JDK 9 options, but it does not adapt well to the original
JDK 5-era MineField test. So that test will continue, in some modified
form, and separately, we will have a new test framework to support new
tests and test cases.
-- Jon
