Integrated: 8273595: tools/jpackage tests do not work on apt-based Linux distros like Debian
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:03:48 GMT, Ao Qi wrote: > A similar issue on Ubuntu has been fixed by > [JDK-8238953](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238953). However, > tools/jpackage tests do not work on Debian Linux or other apt-based Linux, > when rpm package is installed. This issue proposes a general fix for > apt-based Linux. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: f189dff5 Author:Ao Qi Committer: Jie Fu URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/f189dff5cbd4d47e1b2f3c0e5f2c866a7effccdf Stats: 20 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 15 del; 5 mod 8273595: tools/jpackage tests do not work on apt-based Linux distros like Debian Co-authored-by: Sun Xu Reviewed-by: asemenyuk, herrick - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5462
Re: RFR: 8273595: tools/jpackage tests do not work on apt-based Linux distros like Debian
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 16:48:15 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk wrote: >> A similar issue on Ubuntu has been fixed by >> [JDK-8238953](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238953). However, >> tools/jpackage tests do not work on Debian Linux or other apt-based Linux, >> when rpm package is installed. This issue proposes a general fix for >> apt-based Linux. > > Sorry, I issued the "integrate" command as I got confused with the > "contributor" comment. Thanks for your review, @alexeysemenyukoracle ! I have typed "/integrate", but I am not sure if this needs a second reviewer or should wait for a longer time. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5462
RFR: 8273595: tools/jpackage tests do not work on apt-based Linux Distros like Debian
A similar issue on Ubuntu has been fixed by [JDK-8238953](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238953). However, tools/jpackage tests do not work on Debian Linux or other apt-based Linux, when rpm package is installed. This issue proposes a general fix for apt-based Linux. - Commit messages: - copyright year update and less import - 8273595: tools/jpackage tests do not work on apt-based Linux Distros like Debian Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5462/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=5462=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8273595 Stats: 20 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 15 del; 5 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5462.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5462/head:pull/5462 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5462
Re: RFR (T): 8242846: Bring back test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java
Thank you, Sundar. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 6:49 PM wrote: > > Hi, > > Looks good. I'll sponsor this fix. > > Thanks > > -Sundar > > On 27/04/20 4:15 pm, Ao Qi wrote: > > Thanks, Sundar! > > > > I updated a new webrev (patch is the same, only hg commit info was > > added): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.02/ > > > > Could someone help to sponsor this? > > > > Thanks, > > Ao Qi > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:52 PM > > wrote: > >> Looks good > >> > >> -Sundar > >> > >> On 27/04/20 12:24 pm, Ao Qi wrote: > >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:00 AM Alan Bateman > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 21/04/2020 04:58, Ao Qi wrote: > >>>>> On 2020/4/20 下午9:27, Alan Bateman wrote: > >>>>>> On 20/04/2020 11:32, sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Alan, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't remember it now. Likely a mistake. The changeset > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a066fe7b1b42 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> has that file. Perhaps it may be useful to restore & check if the > >>>>>>> test passes. > >>>>>> Yes. I think it was the only test for this jlink option so let's > >>>>>> bring it back or replace it. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I think the test should be brought back. I restored the test and it > >>>>> didn't pass. Here is the diff against the original test[1]: > >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/diff.01, and the new webrev > >>>>> is http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.01/ . I'm not > >>>>> familiar with this field, so I am not sure I fix this rightly. > >>>> Thanks, I think this looks okay. > >>> Thanks, Alan. I have updated the bug title. Is another review needed? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Ao Qi > >>> > >>>> -Alan.
Re: RFR (T): 8242846: Bring back test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java (was: Re: RFR (T): 8242846: removed an empty file test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java
Thanks, Sundar! I updated a new webrev (patch is the same, only hg commit info was added): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.02/ Could someone help to sponsor this? Thanks, Ao Qi On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:52 PM wrote: > > Looks good > > -Sundar > > On 27/04/20 12:24 pm, Ao Qi wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:00 AM Alan Bateman > > wrote: > >> On 21/04/2020 04:58, Ao Qi wrote: > >>> On 2020/4/20 下午9:27, Alan Bateman wrote: > >>>> On 20/04/2020 11:32, sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com wrote: > >>>>> Hi Alan, > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't remember it now. Likely a mistake. The changeset > >>>>> > >>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a066fe7b1b42 > >>>>> > >>>>> has that file. Perhaps it may be useful to restore & check if the > >>>>> test passes. > >>>> Yes. I think it was the only test for this jlink option so let's > >>>> bring it back or replace it. > >>>> > >>> I think the test should be brought back. I restored the test and it > >>> didn't pass. Here is the diff against the original test[1]: > >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/diff.01, and the new webrev > >>> is http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.01/ . I'm not > >>> familiar with this field, so I am not sure I fix this rightly. > >> Thanks, I think this looks okay. > > Thanks, Alan. I have updated the bug title. Is another review needed? > > > > Cheers, > > Ao Qi > > > >> -Alan.
RFR (T): 8242846: Bring back test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java (was: Re: RFR (T): 8242846: removed an empty file test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:00 AM Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 21/04/2020 04:58, Ao Qi wrote: > > > > On 2020/4/20 下午9:27, Alan Bateman wrote: > >> On 20/04/2020 11:32, sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com wrote: > >>> Hi Alan, > >>> > >>> I don't remember it now. Likely a mistake. The changeset > >>> > >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a066fe7b1b42 > >>> > >>> has that file. Perhaps it may be useful to restore & check if the > >>> test passes. > >> Yes. I think it was the only test for this jlink option so let's > >> bring it back or replace it. > >> > > > > I think the test should be brought back. I restored the test and it > > didn't pass. Here is the diff against the original test[1]: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/diff.01, and the new webrev > > is http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.01/ . I'm not > > familiar with this field, so I am not sure I fix this rightly. > Thanks, I think this looks okay. Thanks, Alan. I have updated the bug title. Is another review needed? Cheers, Ao Qi > > -Alan.
Re: RFR (T): 8242846: removed an empty file test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java
On 2020/4/20 下午9:27, Alan Bateman wrote: On 20/04/2020 11:32, sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Alan, I don't remember it now. Likely a mistake. The changeset http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a066fe7b1b42 has that file. Perhaps it may be useful to restore & check if the test passes. Yes. I think it was the only test for this jlink option so let's bring it back or replace it. I think the test should be brought back. I restored the test and it didn't pass. Here is the diff against the original test[1]: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/diff.01, and the new webrev is http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.01/ . I'm not familiar with this field, so I am not sure I fix this rightly. Cheers, Ao Qi [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/raw-file/decf1acca62d/test/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java -Alan.
Re: RFR (T): 8242846: removed an empty file test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java
Hi Alan and Sundar, Thanks for the advice. I will take a look at if the test should be brought back. Cheers, Ao Qi On 2020/4/20 下午6:32, sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Alan, I don't remember it now. Likely a mistake. The changeset http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/a066fe7b1b42 has that file. Perhaps it may be useful to restore & check if the test passes. Thanks, -Sundar On 18/04/20 3:32 pm, Alan Bateman wrote: Sundar - do you recognize this? I assume truncating this test to 0 bytes was a mistake but I can't tell if the test should be brought back or not (to ensure that`jlink --order-resources` is tested). -Alan On 17/04/2020 11:34, Ao Qi wrote: Hi, The original email is waiting for moderator approval. Subscribed to jigsaw-dev and resent the RFR (cc'ed core-libs-dev). Thanks, Ao Qi On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:11 PM Ao Qi wrote: Hi all, test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java was changed to an empty file by JDK-8162538, but not removed. I think we should remve this file. JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242846 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.00/ Thanks, Ao Qi
Re: RFR (T): 8242846: removed an empty file test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java
Hi, The original email is waiting for moderator approval. Subscribed to jigsaw-dev and resent the RFR (cc'ed core-libs-dev). Thanks, Ao Qi On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:11 PM Ao Qi wrote: > > Hi all, > > test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/OrderResourcesPluginTest.java was changed > to an empty file by JDK-8162538, but not removed. I think we should > remve this file. > > JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242846 > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8242846/webrev.00/ > > Thanks, > Ao Qi
Re: [PATCH] test/jdk/java/rmi/transport/runtimeThreadInheritanceLeak/RuntimeThreadInheritanceLeak.java failed in JITed code
Hi Fu Jie: I filed it here: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216528 Cheers, Ao Qi On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM Jie Fu wrote: > > Thanks David. > Hope more cases are suitable for both interpreter and JIT tests. > > > On 2019/1/11 上午10:13, David Holmes wrote: > > Hi Jie, > > > > On 11/01/2019 11:58 am, Jie Fu wrote: > >> Hi David, > >> > >> Thanks and apologies. > > > > No apology needed :) > > > >> This issue was discovered by a broad -Xcomp testing with jtreg on > >> Loongson CPUs (MIPS compatible processors). > >> It was intended to test our MIPS port of OpenJDK. > >> We've found and fixed quite a lot of JIT bugs for our MIPS > >> implementation by this approach. > > > > Okay, you may well be testing more tests under Xcomp than what we > > regularly do, so that may well expose a number of tests that may not > > work at all, or which fail intermittently. I'm trying to find out if > > there is a relatively easy way to enumerate the tests we do run under > > -Xcomp. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > >> I'll ask Ao Qi to file a bug on JBS and post a webrev soon. > >> Thanks again. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Jie > >> > >> > >>> For hotspot testing we have certain sets of tests that are run under > >>> -Xcomp, but this is obviously not one of them. Did you discover this > >>> by chance or because you are attempting to do broad -Xcomp testing? > >>> Not every test will work with Xcomp (for various reasons) and we > >>> aren't actively trying to make every test pass with Xcomp. > >>> > >>> But by all means file a bug and fix it. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> David > >>
