8355515: Clarify the purpose of forcePass() and forceFail() methods

[manukumarvs]

Clarified the purpose of forcePass() and forceFail() methods and recommended usage of these methods.

forcePass() contained an incorrect sample; it's addressed by JDK-8355441.

The description of forceFail() has been expanded, too.

A new section in the description of the PassFailJFrame added to describe forcePass() and forceFail().

---

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-8355515: Clarify the purpose of forcePass() and forceFail() methods (Sub-task - P4)

Reviewers

• Alexander Zuev (@azuev-java - Reviewer) Review applies to 68f72e46
• Alexey Ivanov (@aivanov-jdk - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25091/head:pull/25091
$ git checkout pull/25091

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25091
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25091/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25091

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25091

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25091.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back mvs! 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]

@manukumarvs 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:

8355515: Clarify the purpose of forcePass() and forceFail() methods

Reviewed-by: aivanov, kizune

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 208 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 890456f: 8355078: java.awt.Color.createContext() uses unnecessary synchronization
• 637e9d1: 8354556: Expand value-based class warnings to java.lang.ref API
• fbeea1d: 8356844: Missing @serial annotation for sun.print.CustomOutputBin#serialVersionUID
• ... and 205 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/0844745e7bd954a96441365f8010741ec1c29dbf...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 (@azuev-java, @aivanov-jdk) 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).

[openjdk]

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

• client

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

• 02: Full - Incremental (ff288f0e)
• 01: Full - Incremental (9f0a6321)
• 00: Full (68f72e46)

[azuev-java]

Looks reasonable. Using the blob version of the link to GH as a code example seems unusual but it works.

[manukumarvs]

@aivanov-jdk Any comments from your side?

[manukumarvs]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@manukumarvs
Your change (at version 68f72e4) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[aivanov-jdk]

Suggested change

	* <p>
	* Use this method in semi-automatic tests when
	* the test determines that all/any of the conditions for passing the test are not met.
	* <p>
	* Use this method in semi-automatic tests when
	* it is determined that the conditions for passing the test cannot be met.

I still don't like this phrase… but I can't come up with a different one.

[aivanov-jdk]

After reading the description again, I started to wonder which adverb suits better: ‘forcibly’ or ‘forcefully’. Does any native English speaker have an opinion?

[aivanov-jdk]

Looks reasonable. Using the blob version of the link to GH as a code example seems unusual but it works.

It's the simplest way, and an explicit commit ensures the link always points to the line where the method is used.

[manukumarvs]

After reading the description again, I started to wonder which adverb suits better: ‘forcibly’ or ‘forcefully’. Does any native English speaker have an opinion?
I think forcefully is more apt compared to forcibly, changed it accordingly.

[aivanov-jdk]

After reading the description again, I started to wonder which adverb suits better: ‘forcibly’ or ‘forcefully’. Does any native English speaker have an opinion?

I think forcefully is more apt compared to forcibly, changed it accordingly.

I talked to a native speaker, and ‘forcibly’ is the right word in this situation. Please revert.

[manukumarvs]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@manukumarvs
Your change (at version ff288f0) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[aivanov-jdk]

I've regenerated the javadoc for PassFailJFrame:

• Description of forcePass and forceFail methods in the top documentation;
• forcePass,
• forceFail,
• forceFail(String).

[aivanov-jdk]

@manukumarvs I'll leave the PR open for another day before sponsoring in case anyone else wants to leave a comment. Then I'll sponsor integration of the fix. Thank you.

[aivanov-jdk]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 1a97eb4.
Since your change was applied there have been 215 commits pushed to the master branch:

• ab985a7: 8341544: Restore fence() in Mutex
• 0db5511: 8354969: Add strdup function for ResourceArea
• f8fc7ee: 8357052: java/io/File/GetXSpace.java prints wrong values in exception
• ... and 212 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/0844745e7bd954a96441365f8010741ec1c29dbf...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@aivanov-jdk @manukumarvs Pushed as commit 1a97eb4.

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