RFR: 8024014 : (xs) TEST.groups updates

Mike Duigou mike.duigou at oracle.com
Wed Sep 4 17:12:37 UTC 2013

On Sep 4 2013, at 04:00 , Alan Bateman wrote:

> On 04/09/2013 00:23, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> Hello all;
>> Here is an updated webrev of just 8024014:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8024014/0/webrev/
>> The controversial item here is the definition of the jdk_collections group which, since collections isn't aligned to a directory, is defined by a list of sub-directories. Since the list of files is quite static and would not have changed since Java 6 (except for jdk_stream) I think we should be able to tolerate the not-too-long list of files for the jdk_collections category.
>> Other opinions?
>> Mike
> This is an improvement over the first proposal but I'm still not sure about groups at this level. I'm not objecting, it's more the concern that this will get complicated if personal play lists are added over time. I recall Jim Gish was looking to add make targets at one point for String-only and Process-only tests for example.

Understood. For now the sub-groups boundaries are the same as bug sub-component categories. I personally don't have any plans for the introducing groups which aren't aligned to component or sub-component boundaries. I think we are in agreement that adding such groups would be hard to manage.

> In the context of test selection for profiles, David Holmes has been proposing extending the selection to allow exclusion of groups on the command line, something like:
> jtreg :jdk_util -:jdk_util_concurrent -:jdk_util_stream
> which would run the tests in the jdk_util group, minus the tests in the other groups. If something like this happens then do you think the need for a collections-only subset is reduced?

Yes, though it does presume the existence of the sub-groups that can be "subtracted".


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list