8375322: Improve DomainKeyStore.java coverage

[myankelev]

• Improving the coverage of the DomainKeyStore.java
• converting existing tests to junit in order to make logs easier to read
• Further coverage for DomainKeyStore.java would be required, but should be done as a separate ticket

---

• I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the OpenJDK Interim AI Policy.

---

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

Issue

• JDK-8375322: Improve DomainKeyStore.java coverage (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/30712/head:pull/30712
$ git checkout pull/30712

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/30712
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/30712/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 30712

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 30712

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30712.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back myankelevich! 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]

@myankelev The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• security

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 03: Full - Incremental (ea2f1409)
• 02: Full - Incremental (540c714e)
• 01: Full - Incremental (b03c6dd3)
• 00: Full (8546e98a)

[mpdonova]

one minor comment. Otherwise, looks good to me.

[mpdonova]

this looks like a completely new file; is the copyright correct?

[myankelev]

Kept it as is as this is actually an old test with other cases removed. I only edited and renamed it.
The other file has older name and refactored other tests in addition to the new ones

[Marcono1234]

Out of curiosity: What is the reason why this separate test is needed though? It seems some of the JUnit tests in DKSTest even call the checkEntries method here.

[myankelev]

This test uses system properties which could only set as a script or a subprocess. Either way this is cleaner than starting 2 versions of the same test

[Marcono1234]

Hopefully these comments are useful, if not please let me know. They are only suggestions; feel free to ignore them, I am not an OpenJDK member.

[Marcono1234]

Out of curiosity: What is the reason why this separate test is needed though? It seems some of the JUnit tests in DKSTest even call the checkEntries method here.

[openjdk]

⚠️ @myankelev This pull request contains merges that bring in commits not present in the target repository. Since this is not a "merge style" pull request, these changes will be squashed when this pull request in integrated. If this is your intention, then please ignore this message. If you want to preserve the commit structure, you must change the title of this pull request to Merge <project>:<branch> where <project> is the name of another project in the OpenJDK organization (for example Merge jdk:master).

[myankelev]

/open

[openjdk]

@myankelev This pull request is now open

[openjdk]

@myankelev 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.

[myankelev]

@mpdonova @Marcono1234 Had to force push and overwrite the commits due to the issue with rebasing