8348303: Remove repeated 'a' from ListSelectionEvent

[satyenme]

Backporting JDK-8348303: Remove repeated 'a' from ListSelectionEvent. Trivial test change to clean up description. Ran GHA Sanity Checks, local Tier 1 and 2 tests. Patch is clean.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• JDK-8348303 needs maintainer approval
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8348303: Remove repeated 'a' from ListSelectionEvent (Bug - P5 - Rejected)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/3590/head:pull/3590
$ git checkout pull/3590

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3590
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/3590/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3590

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3590

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/3590.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back ssubramaniam! 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]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

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

[openjdk]

⚠️ @satyenme 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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (f9d4ce29)

[satyenme]

/approval request for backport. Trivial test change to clean up description.

Risk: Low. Tip change was merged in January, but only touches test logic and is quite simple.

Testing:

• GHA Sanity Checks
• Tier 1 and 2 tests locally

[openjdk]

@satyenme
8348303: The approval request has been created successfully.

[GoeLin]

Hi @satyenme
I want to ask you to be more careful with your backports.
Here the description is wrong. It is not a test change.
Before you even pushed a change that had a test that did not compile, but you claimed that you had excecuted it.
Also, please give a reason why you backport a certain change!

[satyenme]

Hi @GoeLin,

Thanks for the feedback and point taken - in this case, the description was an oversight on my part. Planning on being more selective with backports moving forward, strongly emphasizing those with a pressing need and reducing the quantity. I'll also go ahead and close this PR. As for testing, I usually cherry-pick the relevant changes and run tier 1 and 2 tests overnight, then push and confirm sanity checks run before PRing. Was looking back, would you mind linking the case you're referring to?

[GoeLin]

It is this one:
#3531

[satyenme]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I seem to have missed actually running that test locally and apologize for that. As you've linked, looks like @phohensee has a pending fix