8344326: Move jpackage tests from "jdk.jpackage.tests" package to the default package

[GoeLin]

I backport this to keep tests close to head. It will simplify future backports.

Clean backport, but added some test funcionality of "8325089: jpackage utility creates an "infinite", undeleteable directory tree" to make BasicTest.java compile.

Tests pass.

8325089 is not a good candidate to backport along with this, it's a real bug and rather fresh.

Update: fixed bug reference above.
Comm.java was originally added by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343876: Enhancements to jpackage test lib

---

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
• JDK-8344326 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8344326: Move jpackage tests from "jdk.jpackage.tests" package to the default package (Enhancement - P4 - Approved)

Reviewers

• Matthias Baesken (@MBaesken - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/1298/head:pull/1298
$ git checkout pull/1298

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1298
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/1298/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1298

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1298

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/pull/1298.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back goetz! 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]

@GoeLin 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:

8344326: Move jpackage tests from "jdk.jpackage.tests" package to the default package

Reviewed-by: mbaesken

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 1 new commit pushed to the master branch:

• 056a265: 8337660: C2: basic blocks with only BoxLock nodes are wrongly treated as empty

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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.

[openjdk]

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

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (e8e1aa3c)

[MBaesken]

8344326 is not a good candidate to backport along with this, it's a real bug and rather fresh.

This bug is named 8344326 ; do you mean something else ?

[MBaesken]

Looks okay, but the comment about the backport in the PR seems to contain a wrong JBS issue number for the other issue where stuff was taken from .

[openjdk]

⚠️ @GoeLin 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.

[GoeLin]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit f24dfe6.
Since your change was applied there has been 1 commit pushed to the master branch:

• 056a265: 8337660: C2: basic blocks with only BoxLock nodes are wrongly treated as empty

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@GoeLin Pushed as commit f24dfe6.

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

[GoeLin]

Looks okay, but the comment about the backport in the PR seems to contain a wrong JBS issue number for the other issue where stuff was taken from .

Yes, thanks, fixed ... a bit late ...