Looks fine.
--Sean
On 9/25/15 1:27 AM, Amanda Jiang wrote:
Hi Sean,
Thanks for reviewing this, new comments has been addressed, please
check the webrev below:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amjiang/8050402/webrev.03/
Thanks,
Amanda
On 9/24/15, 12:21 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
Hi Amanda,
Just a couple more comments.
- The @bug tage in ExtensiblePolicyTest.java should be on a separate
line.
- I'm not sure why some of the static methods in TVPermission need to
be synchronized. In particular I see no reason for getMask and
getActions to be synchronized.
--Sean
On 9/18/15 3:27 PM, Amanda Jiang wrote:
Hi Sean,
Thanks for your comments.
Tests has been updated by your comments. For one test case, which needs
to create and sign a jar file, then add signed jar file to classpatth,
so I create another java file for that test case. Please check new
webrev below and let me know your suggestions.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amjiang/8050402/webrev.02/
Thanks,
Amanda
On 7/29/15, 11:01 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
Hi Amanda,
Rather than exec-ing java from within the test, I think it would be
better if you used jtreg @run options to do that. For example:
@run main/java.security.policy=ExtensiblePolicyTest1.policy
ExtensiblePolicyTest1 false
@run main/java.security.policy=ExtensiblePolicyTest2.policy
ExtensiblePolicyTest1 true
etc..
I think this would lead to a more robust test and eliminate some
overhead.
Thanks,
Sean
On 07/14/2015 03:15 PM, Amanda Jiang wrote:
Hi,
Please review a new test which checks Policy is extensible with user
defined permissions.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8050402
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amjiang/8050402/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Amanda
