>
> 1) The following test fails with this change, when run on an IPv6-only
> environment. The reason is that it contains a certificate that has
> the IPv4 loopback address, 127.0.0.1.
>
>
> sun/net/www/protocol/https/HttpsURLConnection/IPAddressIPIdentities.java
>
> Caused by: java.secu
Arthur,
On 27/03/2019 15:53, Arthur Eubanks wrote:
Done: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aeubanks/8220575/webrev.04/
1) The following test fails with this change, when run on an IPv6-only
environment. The reason is that it contains a certificate that has
the IPv4 loopback address, 127
> 1) test/jdk/java/net/ResponseCache/Test2.java
>
> 83 url = URIBuilder.newBuilder()
> 84 .scheme("http")
> 85 .loopback()
> 86 .port(port)
> 87 .path("/test/foo")
> 88 .toURLUnchecked();
> 89
Arthur,
On 26/03/2019 22:07, Arthur Eubanks wrote:
Forgot to add URIBuilder, fixed in:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aeubanks/8220575/webrev.03/index.html
I am happy with this. Just a few minor comments.
1) test/jdk/java/net/ResponseCache/Test2.java
83 url = URIBuilder.newBuilder()
Hi Arthur,
On 26/03/2019 16:51, Arthur Eubanks wrote:
Changed B6890349.java to use URL constructor.
Changed sequence of URIBuilder calls to `.host().port().path()`.
Added missing `.path("/")`.
Added logging for most of the constructed URLs.
PTAL:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aeubanks/8220575/w
Changed B6890349.java to use URL constructor.
Changed sequence of URIBuilder calls to `.host().port().path()`.
Added missing `.path("/")`.
Added logging for most of the constructed URLs.
PTAL:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aeubanks/8220575/webrev.01/test/jdk/com/sun/net/httpserver/bugs/B6373555.java
Arthur,
I like the way this is turning out.
> On 26 Mar 2019, at 12:05, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>
> ...
> 2. B6890349.java
>
> Using URI.toURL() in this test will change the nature of
> the test. I believe that in this specific case using the
> multi-arg URL constuctor should be preferred.
>
I've applied your patch and run through our test system. The
sun/net/www/protocol/http/B6890349.java
test failed just like you said. I'm happy to say that it was the only test in
the whole networking area that failed. So test-wise it looks good.
-Pavel
Hi Arthur,
I believe this looks good. Here are my comments so far:
I like the fact that you kept the builder implementation
very minimal, and focused on what these tests actually
need. We can always revisit that later if we come across
new tests that need more than what your proposed implementat
