Skip to content

Conversation

GoeLin
Copy link
Member

@GoeLin GoeLin commented Sep 12, 2025

I backport this to improve testing in 17 and make later backports clean and easier.
Clean backport of the 21u commit.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • JDK-8333446 needs maintainer approval

Issue

  • JDK-8333446: Add tests for hierarchical container support (Enhancement - P3)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/3926/head:pull/3926
$ git checkout pull/3926

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3926
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/3926/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3926

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3926

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/3926.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 12, 2025

👋 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
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 12, 2025

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

@openjdk openjdk bot changed the title backport cf8cfec3f149cb6bb27d0d31bb1c6817feb266f6 8333446: Add tests for hierarchical container support Sep 12, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 12, 2025

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

@openjdk openjdk bot added backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Sep 12, 2025
@GoeLin GoeLin force-pushed the goetz_backport_8333446 branch from 87db152 to d8d0414 Compare September 12, 2025 12:13
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 12, 2025

@GoeLin Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Sep 12, 2025

Webrevs

@GoeLin GoeLin force-pushed the goetz_backport_8333446 branch from d8d0414 to 3a1cc18 Compare September 12, 2025 12:22
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 12, 2025

@GoeLin Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the clean Identical backport; no merge resolution required label Sep 12, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 12, 2025

⚠️ @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.

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

jerboaa commented Sep 12, 2025

Hmm, those tests will fail on cgv2 without https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8322420

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member Author

GoeLin commented Sep 13, 2025

OK, JDK-8322420 is a larger one, and it needs two other changes. So this makes no sense.
Except if you, @jankratochvil , intend to bring JDK-8322420 to 17, anyways?

I think at least
JDK-8302744 "Refactor Hotspot container detection code" and
JDK-8331560 "Refactor Hotspot container detection code so that subsystem delegates to controllers"
are needed, too.

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

jerboaa commented Sep 15, 2025

Yes. I suggest to not backport this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base clean Identical backport; no merge resolution required rfr Pull request is ready for review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants