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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:17:22 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> WhileOpTest.java is a TestNG test (`TestNG.dirs` is set in Find file:
> `test/jdk/java/util/stream/test/TEST.properties`)
>
> As such, the `@run main/timeout=240` annotation is ignored. If that was not
> the case, it would
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:17:22 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> WhileOpTest.java is a TestNG test (`TestNG.dirs` is set in Find file:
> `test/jdk/java/util/stream/test/TEST.properties`)
>
> As such, the `@run main/timeout=240` annotation is ignored. If that was not
> the case, it would
WhileOpTest.java is a TestNG test (`TestNG.dirs` is set in Find file:
`test/jdk/java/util/stream/test/TEST.properties`)
As such, the `@run main/timeout=240` annotation is ignored. If that was not the
case, it would complain about not specifying a main class.
-
Commit messages:
- 8
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.
>>
>
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:19:53 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> Updates to javadoc after improvement ideas in the review of 8315097. I have
> also removed the incomplete invocation command line. I also removed
> incomplete information in `executeTestJvm` and added
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:43:43 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> Changing from `Class c` to `Class c` removes two warnings.
Thanks!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16431#issuecomment-1794831441
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:43:43 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> Changing from `Class c` to `Class c` removes two warnings.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 1c2ea1d2
Author: Leo Korinth
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/1c2ea1d27b1895dca3b30073e3516978083dc70a
St
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:15:50 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Updates to javadoc after improvement ideas in the review of 8315097. I have
>> also removed the incomplete invocation command line. I also removed
>> incomplete information in `executeTestJvm` a
> Updates to javadoc after improvement ideas in the review of 8315097. I have
> also removed the incomplete invocation command line. I also removed
> incomplete information in `executeTestJvm` and added a link to
> `createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder`
Leo Korinth has updated the
Changing from `Class c` to `Class c` removes two warnings.
-
Commit messages:
- 8319153: Fix: Class is a raw type in ProcessTools
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16431/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=16431&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/
Updates to javadoc after improvement ideas in the review of 8315097. I have
also removed the incomplete invocation command line. I also removed incomplete
information in `executeTestJvm` and added a link to
`createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder`
-
Commit messages:
- 8318962: Javado
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:48:00 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> Update method name after huge renaming conflict
Thanks!!!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16395#issuecomment-1782627439
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:48:00 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> Update method name after huge renaming conflict
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: b9dcd4b7
Author: Leo Korinth
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/b9dcd4b74138dd77faa46525f101b985248fffc5
Stats:
Update method name after huge renaming conflict
-
Commit messages:
- 8318964: Fix build failures caused by 8315097
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16395/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=16395&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8318
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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"
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"
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
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
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
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
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
