On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:07:12 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Ivan Bereziuk 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. The pull request contains 11 additional 
>> commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8343832_enhance_test_summary
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8343832_enhance_test_summary
>>  - SKIPPED is always zero for Microbenchark testing. Define SKIPPED in one 
>> go after branching.
>>  - _SKIPPED was not defined for gtest and special tests. Treat disabled 
>> gtests as _SKIPPED
>>  - adapt changes to the ancient awk on MacOS
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8343832_enhance_test_summary
>>  - indented the comment
>>  - remove resorting zero-ing of $1_SKIPPED as preceding gawk always assigns 
>> the value
>>  - lowercased Jtreg. fixed typos in the comment
>>  - aggregated calculation for many categoires of skipped tests into one gawk 
>> block with regex
>>  - ... and 1 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/1deac5ce...6af586a2
>
> Actually, my assessment was wrong -- it is not the GHA script that is the 
> cause of failure. Instead, it was the changes in RunTests.gmk that were not 
> complete. They tried to detect if there were any errors by comparing the 
> number of successful tests with the total number of tests, but this is no 
> longer an uphold invariant. Another side effect of this was that even when 
> run locally, tests suites with passed tests would be marked as failed.
> 
> It was a bit tricky to describe what was needed for this, so I made a patch 
> at 
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/6784dea42c60b720027b291dfd8263ad175b4ab0.
>  This is currently running in GHA at 
> https://github.com/magicus/jdk/actions/runs/13551422706, but I expect it to 
> pass, since the script behaves properly local on my computer.

Thank you, @magicus, @erikj79 for helping me with this MR.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22245#issuecomment-2690583671

Reply via email to