8198237: [macos] Test java/awt/Frame/ExceptionOnSetExtendedStateTest/ExceptionOnSetExtendedStateTest.java fails

[alisenchung]

De-problem listing test. Test does not fail on mainline on macos13 or 14

---

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-8198237: [macos] Test java/awt/Frame/ExceptionOnSetExtendedStateTest/ExceptionOnSetExtendedStateTest.java fails (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

• Guoxiong Li (@lgxbslgx - Committer)
• Alexey Ivanov (@aivanov-jdk - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/18014/head:pull/18014
$ git checkout pull/18014

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/18014
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/18014/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 18014

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 18014

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18014.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back achung! 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]

@alisenchung To determine the appropriate audience for reviewing this pull request, one or more labels corresponding to different subsystems will normally be applied automatically. However, no automatic labelling rule matches the changes in this pull request. In order to have an "RFR" email sent to the correct mailing list, you will need to add one or more applicable labels manually using the /label pull request command.

Applicable Labels

• build
• client
• compiler
• core-libs
• graal
• hotspot
• hotspot-compiler
• hotspot-gc
• hotspot-jfr
• hotspot-runtime
• i18n
• ide-support
• javadoc
• jdk
• jmx
• kulla
• net
• nio
• security
• serviceability
• shenandoah

[lgxbslgx]

LGTM.

If you want to solve this bug in older JDK version, it is good to file another issue to match this PR. If not, you should change the fix version of this issue.

[kevinrushforth]

⚠️ The fixVersion in this issue is [8-pool] but the fixVersion in .jcheck/conf is 23, a new backport will be created when this pr is integrated.

@alisenchung I think changing the fix version of the bug is probably the best approach. A backport could be done for earlier versions, if desired. I don't think we want to use a different bug ID either for the mainline or for prior releases because this bug ID is referenced in the problem list.

[alisenchung]

I've changed the fix version to 23

[aivanov-jdk]

Looks good to me.

Is it known when the test stopped failing? Any fix that resolved the failure?

[openjdk]

@alisenchung 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:

8198237: [macos] Test java/awt/Frame/ExceptionOnSetExtendedStateTest/ExceptionOnSetExtendedStateTest.java fails

Reviewed-by: gli, aivanov

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 597 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 78d1b90: 8328380: Remove applet usage from JColorChooser tests Test6348456
• 907e30f: 8325579: Inconsistent behavior in com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::createSocket
• 70a15c7: 8328825: Google CAInterop test failures
• a1fbbff: 8328717: Convert javax/swing/JColorChooser/8065098/bug8065098.java applet test to main
• 26b2ec4: 8328824: Clean up java.base native compilation
• af15c68: 8321278: C2: Partial peeling fails with assert "last_peel <- first_not_peeled"
• 142c311: 8328744: Parallel: Parallel GC throws OOM before heap is fully expanded
• cb2a671: 8324121: SIGFPE in PhaseIdealLoop::extract_long_range_checks
• 0c1b254: 8326438: C2: assert(ld->in(1)->Opcode() == Op_LoadN) failed: Assumption invalid: input to DecodeN is not LoadN
• 29ba4b7: 8328705: GHA: Cross-compilation jobs do not require build JDK
• ... and 587 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/16b3be0a76b0a71c8f59168dfc94c06d8a899bd4...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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[alisenchung]

Looks good to me.

Is it known when the test stopped failing? Any fix that resolved the failure?

I'm not sure, but the last failure was seen on JDK11, so the failure is quite old

[alisenchung]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 862e615.
Since your change was applied there have been 738 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 040c935: 8328183: Minor mistakes in docs of PrintStream.append()
• 4a11db8: 8329662: Add a test to verify the behaviour of the default HEAD() method on HttpRequest.Builder
• 46d3d7b: 8329529: Serial: Move _saved_mark_word out of ContiguousSpace
• 29992e1: 8329570: G1: Excessive is_obj_dead_cond calls in verification
• 27353ad: 8329521: Serial: Rename MarkSweep to SerialFullGC
• 18c925c: 8329661: Refactor ScavengableNMethods::verify_unlisted_nmethods
• 3f4b167: 8329672: Only call SetupNativeCompilation from SetupJdkNativeCompilation
• 8bc1867: 8307160: Fix AWT/2D/A11Y to support the permissive- flag on the Microsoft Visual C compiler
• 8efe569: 8328747: WrongMethodTypeException with pattern matching on switch on sealed classes
• 71d48bc: 8329655: Cleanup KlassObj and klassOop names after the PermGen removal
• ... and 728 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/16b3be0a76b0a71c8f59168dfc94c06d8a899bd4...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@alisenchung Pushed as commit 862e615.

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