8320665: update jdk_core at open/test/jdk/TEST.groups

[frkator]

@bwhuang-us @mahendrachhipa

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8320665: update jdk_core at open/test/jdk/TEST.groups (Task - P4)

Reviewers

• Mark Sheppard (@msheppar - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to e311f3e0

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16796/head:pull/16796
$ git checkout pull/16796

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/16796
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16796/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 16796

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 16796

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16796.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back isipka! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@frkator The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (6615915b)
• 00: Full (e311f3e0)

[AlanBateman]

I use the jdk_core test group. I know the split doesn't impact users of this test group but it's not clear why the change is being done. Would it be possible to explain why you are doing this? There is nothing in the JBS issue or PR to explain.

[openjdk]

@frkator This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8320665: update jdk_core at open/test/jdk/TEST.groups

Reviewed-by: msheppar

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 116 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• c9d15f7: 8321025: Enable Neoverse N1 optimizations for Neoverse V2
• 61653a1: 8320830: [AIX] Dont mix os::dll_load() with direct dlclose() calls
• 8b102ed: 8321063: AArch64: Zero build fails after JDK-8320368
• 6941369: 8320921: GHA: Parallelize hotspot_compiler test jobs
• 0d14636: 8320515: assert(monitor->object_peek() != nullptr) failed: Owned monitors should not have a dead object
• d6b4aa0: 8318157: RISC-V: implement ensureMaterializedForStackWalk intrinsic
• 7766785: 8319372: C2 compilation fails with "Bad immediate dominator info"
• 940f67c: 8318854: [macos14] Running any AWT app prints Secure coding warning
• c864317: 8320888: Shenandoah: Enable ShenandoahVerifyOptoBarriers in debug builds
• d1e73b1: 8318626: GetClassFields does not filter out ConstantPool.constantPoolOop field
• ... and 106 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/5e818318eac8cda7d42b599dc7d7d44e5c299a9f...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@msheppar) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[frkator]

I use the jdk_core test group. I know the split doesn't impact users of this test group but it's not clear why the change is being done. Would it be possible to explain why you are doing this? There is nothing in the JBS issue or PR to explain.

explained in private communication: refactoring of internally used files to enable ergonomic result analysis for internal processes

[frkator]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@frkator
Your change (at version e311f3e) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[AlanBateman]

I use the jdk_core test group. I know the split doesn't impact users of this test group but it's not clear why the change is being done. Would it be possible to explain why you are doing this? There is nothing in the JBS issue or PR to explain.

explained in private communication: refactoring of internally used files to enable ergonomic result analysis for internal processes

My concern with changes like this is that it's just adding to the complexity of the definitions of important test groups. I think we need a new section/heading at the end of the file as the place to put these special test runs (esp. the manual tests). For jdk_core_no_security then my strong preference is not to hack the existing test group configurations, instead add this to the special runs section at the end:

 jdk_core_no_security = \
    :jdk_core \
    -:jdk_security

[frkator]

I use the jdk_core test group. I know the split doesn't impact users of this test group but it's not clear why the change is being done. Would it be possible to explain why you are doing this? There is nothing in the JBS issue or PR to explain.

explained in private communication: refactoring of internally used files to enable ergonomic result analysis for internal processes

My concern with changes like this is that it's just adding to the complexity of the definitions of important test groups. I think we need a new section/heading at the end of the file as the place to put these special test runs (esp. the manual tests). For jdk_core_no_security then my strong preference is not to hack the existing test group configurations, instead add this to the special runs section at the end:

 jdk_core_no_security = \
    :jdk_core \
    -:jdk_security

Code updated as per your suggestion, thank you.

[AlanBateman]

Good, that is a lot more maintainable.

[msheppar]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

@msheppar The PR has been updated since the change author (@frkator) issued the integrate command - the author must perform this command again.

[frkator]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@frkator This pull request has not yet been marked as ready for integration.

[frkator]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@frkator
Your change (at version 6615915) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[msheppar]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit da7cf25.
Since your change was applied there have been 116 commits pushed to the master branch:

• c9d15f7: 8321025: Enable Neoverse N1 optimizations for Neoverse V2
• 61653a1: 8320830: [AIX] Dont mix os::dll_load() with direct dlclose() calls
• 8b102ed: 8321063: AArch64: Zero build fails after JDK-8320368
• 6941369: 8320921: GHA: Parallelize hotspot_compiler test jobs
• 0d14636: 8320515: assert(monitor->object_peek() != nullptr) failed: Owned monitors should not have a dead object
• d6b4aa0: 8318157: RISC-V: implement ensureMaterializedForStackWalk intrinsic
• 7766785: 8319372: C2 compilation fails with "Bad immediate dominator info"
• 940f67c: 8318854: [macos14] Running any AWT app prints Secure coding warning
• c864317: 8320888: Shenandoah: Enable ShenandoahVerifyOptoBarriers in debug builds
• d1e73b1: 8318626: GetClassFields does not filter out ConstantPool.constantPoolOop field
• ... and 106 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/5e818318eac8cda7d42b599dc7d7d44e5c299a9f...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@msheppar @frkator Pushed as commit da7cf25.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.