Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8310923: Refactor Currency tests to use JUnit #2503

Closed

Conversation

luchenlin
Copy link
Contributor

@luchenlin luchenlin commented Feb 1, 2024

I backport this for parity with 11.0.24-oracle.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • JDK-8310923 needs maintainer approval

Integration blocker

 ⚠️ Too few reviewers with at least role reviewer found (have 0, need at least 1) (failed with updated jcheck configuration in pull request)

Issue

  • JDK-8310923: Refactor Currency tests to use JUnit (Sub-task - P4)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/2503/head:pull/2503
$ git checkout pull/2503

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/2503
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/2503/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 2503

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 2503

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev/pull/2503.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 1, 2024

👋 Welcome back andrewlu! 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 openjdk bot changed the title Backport 44ed380eaea7bf3faaeff30464327da39cfea509 8310923: Refactor Currency tests to use JUnit Feb 1, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 1, 2024

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 1, 2024

⚠️ @luchenlin This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Feb 1, 2024
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Feb 1, 2024

Webrevs

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member

GoeLin commented Feb 8, 2024

The github actions tests fail, because the junit code used in this change depends on a recent junit. GHA of 11 use old jtreg 6.1.. With 7.3.1, which contains a more recent junit, the tests would work.

@gnu-andrew
Copy link
Member

gnu-andrew commented Feb 12, 2024

The github actions tests fail, because the junit code used in this change depends on a recent junit. GHA of 11 use old jtreg 6.1.. With 7.3.1, which contains a more recent junit, the tests would work.

Do we plan to transition 11u to jtreg 7? Doing so has quite a long tail of dependencies: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8289798

I think this is being backported for 8321480: ISO 4217 Amendment 176 Update because it contains some follow-on unrelated test changes from this patch. You could do 8321480 without this patch - I think we'll have to in 8u as jtreg 7 needs JDK 11 - but I don't want to do that if we are going to bring this change in, as it will make this change unclean and risk missing the post-8310923 changes in 8321480.

Incidentally, this one is in 11.0.24-oracle, not 11.0.23-oracle.

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member

GoeLin commented Feb 13, 2024

Hi @gnu-andrew,
Yes, we backport this because 8321480: ISO 4217 Amendment 176 Update depends on it. But it is also easy to resolve 8321480 without this change, which is what Oracle did.
I have been looking at raising the jtreg version. As a first step, I wanted to explore backporting the required test fixes you mention above. Actually, there are some more prerequisites. But I don't think we will achieve this by Feb 27th. So maybe we should proceed with the ISO 4217 Amendment.

@gnu-andrew
Copy link
Member

Hi @gnu-andrew, Yes, we backport this because 8321480: ISO 4217 Amendment 176 Update depends on it. But it is also easy to resolve 8321480 without this change, which is what Oracle did. I have been looking at raising the jtreg version. As a first step, I wanted to explore backporting the required test fixes you mention above. Actually, there are some more prerequisites. But I don't think we will achieve this by Feb 27th. So maybe we should proceed with the ISO 4217 Amendment.

Yes, I'm starting to think it would be better not to try and rush the jtreg bump and instead do that in the July cycle. I have a backport of the ISO amendment without the test change almost ready and can submit a PR later today. Let me know if I can be of any help with the jtreg bump.

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member

GoeLin commented Feb 19, 2024

Hi @gnu-andrew,
Yes, I think we should bring JDK-8321480 to 11 now, and not wait for this change.
I think we should not omit the test changes, but resolve them.
This change just makes them a clean backpot.
Could you please have a look at that, @luchenlin?
Thanks!

@gnu-andrew
Copy link
Member

I've opened a backport for JDK-8321480 on #2532
It would be good if this PR could pick up the skipped change to twoLetterCodesTest from that backport straight away so it doesn't get missed when this finally does get integrated. It seems to not be directly related to 8321480 anyway (method is introduced by this refactoring and original tests pass after 8321480 only)

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 27, 2024

@luchenlin this pull request can not be integrated into master due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout backport-luchenlin-44ed380e
git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

@openjdk openjdk bot added the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Feb 27, 2024
@luchenlin luchenlin closed this Feb 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport clean merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch rfr Pull request is ready for review
3 participants