From Fedora Project Wiki

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 230: Line 230:


If you have problems with any of the tests, report a bug to [https://bugzilla.redhat.com Bugzilla] usually for the component [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=28&component=java-openjdk java-openjdk] or [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=28&component=java-11-openjdk java-11-openjdk] or [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=28&component=java-1.8.0-openjdk java-1.8.0-openjdk]. If you are unsure about exactly how to file the report or what other information to include, just ask on IRC and we will help you.
If you have problems with any of the tests, report a bug to [https://bugzilla.redhat.com Bugzilla] usually for the component [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=28&component=java-openjdk java-openjdk] or [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=28&component=java-11-openjdk java-11-openjdk] or [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=28&component=java-1.8.0-openjdk java-1.8.0-openjdk]. If you are unsure about exactly how to file the report or what other information to include, just ask on IRC and we will help you.
== Test Results ==
=== Install ===
{|
! User
! Profile
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_java_install java install]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_java-devel_install java-devel install]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_java-openjdk_install java-openjdk install]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_java-11-openjdk_install java-11-openjdk install]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_java-1.8.0-openjdk_install java-1.8.0-openjdk install]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_java-9-openjdk_install java-9-openjdk install]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_icedtea-web_install icedtea-web install]
! References
|-
| [[User:andrlos|andrlos]]
| f29-x64
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}<ref>{{bz|1633332}} java 1.8.0 configs missing in /etc/java</ref>{{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:nabooengineer|nabooengineer]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|warn}}<ref>I rolled back the initial VM snapshot each time to do a fresh install vs. installing each additive. Then installed all of them to test the alternatives switching.</ref>{{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|fail}}<ref>sudo dnf install java-9-openjdk
Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:00 ago on Tue 25 Sep 2018 11:43:45 PM EDT.
No match for argument: java-9-openjdk
Error: Unable to find a match
</ref>
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:spathare|spathare]]
| Fedora 29 Workstation x86_64
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:stooke|stooke]]
|
| {{result|pass}}<ref>I found the different separators between the package names and java versions slightly confusing, and for a second thought it was downgrading.  This was totally my carelessness, but I thought I'd admit to it.
$ java --version
openjdk 11-ea 2018-09-25
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 11-ea+22)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 11-ea+22, mixed mode, sharing)
RPM install:
Installing:
java-11-openjdk              x86_64    1:11.0.ea.28-2.fc29      updates-testing    193 k
All I saw was the "+22" and "-2" until I looked carefully.  </ref>
| {{result|pass}}<ref>Sorry, I just read the test case again, and this was expected behaviour.  As a user, I would find it very confusing - if I dnf install java , then I would expect the java-devel package to be the same version.</ref>{{result|fail}}<ref>sudo dnf install java-devel offered to (and I let it) install
(1/3): java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.181.b15-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm                    103 kB/s | 234 kB    00:02   
(2/3): java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.181.b15-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm              651 kB/s | 9.8 MB    00:15   
(3/3): java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.181.b15-0.fc29.x86_64.rpm          875 kB/s |  32 MB    00:37 
I would expect JDK 11 !</ref>
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|warn}}<ref>JDK 11 was installed by default on my version of f29, so I got "already installed"</ref>
|
|
|
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:stooke|stooke]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
|
|
|
|
| {{result|pass}}<ref>(already installed)</ref>
| {{result|pass}}<ref>"Error: Unable to find a match"</ref>
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
|}
=== Multiple installs ===
{|
! User
! Profile
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-11-devel installs]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-devel installs]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-1.8.0-devel]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-11-devel and java-10-devel installs]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-11-devel and java-1.8.0-devel installs]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-10-devel and java-10-devel installs]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2018-09-26:java_8,_10_and_11_testday#Install_Only_JDK multiple java-11-devel and java-10-devel and java-1.8.0-devel installs]
! References
|-
|}
=== switch JRE/JDK ===
{|
! User
! Profile
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_Switching_JRE/JDK_install swtich JRE/JDK]
! References
|-
| [[User:nabooengineer|nabooengineer]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}<ref>Awesome, just be aware that some familiarity with alternatives & java helps to do this test. The "How to test" instructions are a little nebulous, as such not as clean as the install "How to test".</ref>
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:spathare|spathare]]
| Fedora 29 Workstation x86_64
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:stooke|stooke]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}<ref>I think it might be confusing if java gets you 1.8, while javac gets you 11 - the mismatch should be flagged with a warning, at 'alternatives' time somehow</ref>
| <references/>
|-
|}
=== crypto config ===
{|
! User
! Profile
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_Systemwide_crypto_policy system wide]
! References
|-
| [[User:nabooengineer|nabooengineer]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}<ref>DEFAULT, LEGACY & FUTURE worked as expected.</ref>
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:spathare|spathare]]
| Fedora 29 Workstation x86_64
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:stooke|stooke]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
|}
=== Shenandoah ===
{|
! User
! Profile
! [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sumantrom/Draft/Testcase_Shenandoah GC testing]
! References
|-
| [[User:nabooengineer|nabooengineer]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}<ref>Decreasing the VCPU count from 4 to 1 allows me to see the better performance of ShenandoahGC over  default GC</ref>{{result|warn}}<ref>Shenandoah GC appears to be functionally working as expected. GC does seem smoother/quicker. However I don't really see a pause time impact, really need to do a performance comparison benchmark and on bare metal vs on a VM F29 install. Will require some time to setup a real test, unless we have a specific test case comparison. Do we have a specific comparison?</ref>
| <references/>
|-
|}
=== rpm/dnf ops ===
{|
! User
! Profile
! [http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Java_rpm_Testcase&redirect=yes java]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Java-devel_rpm_Testcase&redirect=yes java-devel]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Java-openjdk_rpm_Testcase&redirect=yes java-openjdk]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Java-11-openjdk_rpm_Testcase&redirect=yes java-11-openjdk]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Java-1.8.0-openjdk_rpm_Testcase&redirect=yes java-1.8.0-openjdk]
! [http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Icetea_web_rpm_Testcase&redirect=yes icedtea-web]
! References
|-
| [[User:nabooengineer|nabooengineer]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
| [[User:stooke|stooke]]
| Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5 + Updates
| {{result|fail}}<ref>"sudo dnf remove java" offered to remove all versions of java on my system, yet "sudo dnf remove java-devel" only offered to remove JDK 1.8.0.  This is inconsistent.</ref>
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}
| {{result|pass}}{{result|pass}}
|
| {{result|pass}}
| <references/>
|-
|}


  [[Category: Fedora 29 Test Days]]
  [[Category: Fedora 29 Test Days]]
Please note that all contributions to Fedora Project Wiki are considered to be released under the Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International (see Fedora Project Wiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please solve the following task below and enter the answer in the box (more info):

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)