On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 14:06:52 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which addresses the > failure reported in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8394341? > > This test launches processes as part of its test execution. It was recently > refactored to use the commonly used JDK internal > `jdk.test.lib.process.ProcessTools` test library. After this refactoring, > if/when this test gets launched on a virtual thread (through the > `-testThreadFactory:Virtual`), then the `testWithClassPathSetViaProperty()` > test method fails because it launches a `java` processes with a > custom/controlled classpath. > > Given the way `ProcessTools` library is implemented, when launching a `java` > process in the presence of `-testThreadFactory:Virtual`, the launched process > is expected to contain the `jdk.test.lib.process.ProcessTools` class in its > classpath. Given that `testWithClassPathSetViaProperty()`, configures a > classpath of its own, the test thus fails due to the missing > `jdk.test.lib.process.ProcessTools`. > > In practice, this test shouldn't be run when launching jtreg with > `-testThreadFactory:Virtual`, neither should the child processes be passed > any additional arguments than what the test method itself configures. The > commit in this PR sets up the relevant `@requires` in the test definition to > prevent such executions. The test methods themselves has been updated to use > `ProcessTools.executeCommand(...)` to make it clear that the child processes' > arguments shouldn't be affected by how jtreg is launched (for example, by > passing `-javaoptions:...`) > > > > --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). I'm looking for a review of this test-only change please. I've verified in our CI that this test now gets skipped when launched through a virtual thread and passes as expected when launched with a platform thread. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33345#issuecomment-6211255394
