Withdrawn: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-15 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests &g

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-15 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests &g

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests &g

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests &g

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Fri, 9 May 2025 08:45:48 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote: > > My change of timeout factor to 0.7 is only temporal, as I said: it will be > > reverted to 4 before integration. > > Is really worth reverting back to 4 instead of trying to get jtreg released > with CODETOOLS-7903961 and then integra

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Fri, 9 May 2025 08:58:15 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> test/jdk/java/awt/font/NumericShaper/MTTest.java >> >> - * @run main/timeout=300/othervm MTTest >> + * @run main/timeout=1200/othervm MTTest >> >> I'm puzzling over why you saw this test fail with t

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 20:00:21 GMT, Phil Race wrote: > test/jdk/java/awt/font/NumericShaper/MTTest.java > > * * @run main/timeout=300/othervm MTTest > > > * * @run main/timeout=1200/othervm MTTest > > > I'm puzzling over why you saw this test fail with timeout = 300 .. or perhaps > you

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:14:11 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > Thank you. I have imported your PR locally and running some HTTP client tests > in the CI. Tests have not finished running - but I already see one > intermittent failure: `java/net/httpclient/RedirectTimeoutTest.java` is > timing out inter

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests &g

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-08 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 16:04:53 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote: >> This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able >> to run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). >> >> The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests >> and

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-08 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests &g

RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-08 Thread Leo Korinth
This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests and test the change (it will finally be changed to 1.0 in JDK-8260555). The n

Re: RFR: 8352719: Add an equals sign to the modules statement

2025-04-01 Thread Leo Korinth
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:30:57 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > krb5/auto/TEST.properties: add an equals sign to the modules statement (this > is the only `TEST.properties` file that uses this undocumented feature) . > > compare: > > find -name "TEST.properties" | xargs

Integrated: 8352719: Add an equals sign to the modules statement

2025-04-01 Thread Leo Korinth
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:30:57 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > krb5/auto/TEST.properties: add an equals sign to the modules statement (this > is the only `TEST.properties` file that uses this undocumented feature) . > > compare: > > find -name "TEST.properties" | xargs

Re: RFR: 8352719: Add an equals sign to the modules statement

2025-03-25 Thread Leo Korinth
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:17:19 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > The bug issue needs a `noreg-self` label. Fixed - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24194#issuecomment-2751038421

RFR: 8352719: Add an equals sign to the modules statement

2025-03-24 Thread Leo Korinth
krb5/auto/TEST.properties: add an equals sign to the modules statement (this is the only `TEST.properties` file that uses this undocumented feature) . compare: find -name "TEST.properties" | xargs grep 'modules.*java' | find -name "TEST.properties" | xargs grep 'modules.*java' | grep -v = -

Re: RFR: 8321713: Harmonize executeTestJvm with create[Limited]TestJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

2023-12-11 Thread Leo Korinth
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:06:43 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote: >> [JDK-8315097](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315097): 'Rename >> createJavaProcessBuilder' changed the name of the ProcessTools helper >> functions used to create `ProcessBuilder`s used to spawn new java test >> processes. >> >

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v7]

2023-10-27 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 08:44:29 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> This pull request renames `createJavaProcessBuilder` to >> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` and renames `createTestJvm` to >> `createTestJavaProcessBuilder`. Both are implemented through a private >> `creat

Integrated: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder

2023-10-27 Thread Leo Korinth
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 15:54:08 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This pull request renames `createJavaProcessBuilder` to > `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` and renames `createTestJvm` to > `createTestJavaProcessBuilder`. Both are implemented through a private > `createJavaProcessBuild

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v7]

2023-10-26 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 08:44:29 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> This pull request renames `createJavaProcessBuilder` to >> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` and renames `createTestJvm` to >> `createTestJavaProcessBuilder`. Both are implemented through a private >> `creat

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v7]

2023-10-25 Thread Leo Korinth
that it should be harder to by mistake use > `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder` that is problematic because it will not > forward JVM flags to the tested JVM. Leo Korinth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: fix copyri

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v6]

2023-10-24 Thread Leo Korinth
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 07:49:30 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of >> createTestJvm. >> >> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed >&g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v6]

2023-10-24 Thread Leo Korinth
> the name of Utils.prependTestJavaOpts that adds those VM flags. If you have a > better name I could do a rename of the method. I kind of like that it is long > and clumsy, that makes it harder to use... > > I have run tier 1 testing, and I have started more exhaustive tes

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v5]

2023-10-20 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:16:13 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of >> createTestJvm. >> >> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed >&g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v5]

2023-10-19 Thread Leo Korinth
> the name of Utils.prependTestJavaOpts that adds those VM flags. If you have a > better name I could do a rename of the method. I kind of like that it is long > and clumsy, that makes it harder to use... > > I have run tier 1 testing, and I have started more exhaustive tes

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v4]

2023-10-19 Thread Leo Korinth
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:29:46 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of >> createTestJvm. >> >> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed >&g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v4]

2023-10-17 Thread Leo Korinth
> the name of Utils.prependTestJavaOpts that adds those VM flags. If you have a > better name I could do a rename of the method. I kind of like that it is long > and clumsy, that makes it harder to use... > > I have run tier 1 testing, and I have started more exhaustive testing

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

2023-09-06 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:23:55 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of >> createTestJvm. >> >> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed >&g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

2023-09-04 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:23:55 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of >> createTestJvm. >> >> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed >&g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

2023-08-30 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:23:55 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of >> createTestJvm. >> >> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed >&g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v3]

2023-08-30 Thread Leo Korinth
> the name of Utils.prependTestJavaOpts that adds those VM flags. If you have a > better name I could do a rename of the method. I kind of like that it is long > and clumsy, that makes it harder to use... > > I have run tier 1 testing, and I have started more exhaustive testi

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v2]

2023-08-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:06:01 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Leo Korinth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> copyright > > I don't think this is the best change across so many files. > It g

Re: RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder [v2]

2023-08-29 Thread Leo Korinth
> the name of Utils.prependTestJavaOpts that adds those VM flags. If you have a > better name I could do a rename of the method. I kind of like that it is long > and clumsy, that makes it harder to use... > > I have run tier 1 testing, and I have started more exhausti

RFR: 8315097: Rename createJavaProcessBuilder

2023-08-28 Thread Leo Korinth
Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of createTestJvm. I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed -i -e "s/createJavaProcessBuilder(/createJavaProcessBuilderIgnoreTestJavaOpts(/g"` Then I have manually modified ProcessTools.j

Withdrawn: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:54:51 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > Remove trailing "blank" lines in source files. > > I like to use global-whitespace-cleanup-mode, but I can not use it if the > files are "dirty" to begin with. This fix will make more files "clean"

Re: RFR: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:54:51 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > Remove trailing "blank" lines in source files. > > I like to use global-whitespace-cleanup-mode, but I can not use it if the > files are "dirty" to begin with. This fix will make more files "clean"

Re: RFR: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:40:34 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote: > You could fix your emacs functions. It is a *very nice* feature of global-whitespace-cleanup-mode - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14698#issuecomment-1613252347

Re: RFR: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:11:40 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Neither the PR diffs nor the webrev make it easy to see exactly what is being > changed here. It appeared to me that the last empty line of each file was > being deleted, leaving no newline at the end. My changes look like this in the dif

Re: RFR: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:01:03 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote: > Why do we care about this? I care because of global-whitespace-cleanup-mode (in emacs). It helps me remove trailing whitespaces and blanklines when saving but it will not fix a file that was "dirty" when it was opened. Trailing blank

Re: RFR: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-29 Thread Leo Korinth
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:41:11 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > This seems to run contrary to the requirement that files end in a newline, > which git will complain about if the newline is missing. > > It also seems far too large and disruptive. Do you still think it is too disruptive after Erik's expl

RFR: 8311043: Remove trailing blank lines in source files

2023-06-28 Thread Leo Korinth
Remove trailing "blank" lines in source files. I like to use global-whitespace-cleanup-mode, but I can not use it if the files are "dirty" to begin with. This fix will make more files "clean". I also considered adding a check for this in jcheck for Skara, however it seems jcheck code handling h