RFR 8065076/9, test/java/net/SocketPermission/SocketPermissionTest.java failed intermittently

[Seán Coffey]

The changes look fine to me also Chris.

Regards,
Sean.

On 22/01/16 14:49, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 21/01/16 22:55, Felix Yang wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>       your fix is cool. I will assign the bug to you:)
>>       a comment on this fix. The test changed system SecurityManager and
>> it is not executed with othervm mode. I think you need to rollback the
>> change after test.
>
> I will revert the change and have the test run in othervm mode.
>
> I did do a complete test run with this change and it did not cause
> any problems, but then again the policy is all permissions!
>
> Thanks Felix.
>
> -Chris.
>
> > Otherwise it may affect other tests.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Felix
>>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com
>>> <mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 Jan 2016, at 06:36, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com
>>> <mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Felix,
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Jan 2016, at 06:07, Felix Yang <felix.yang at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:felix.yang at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>  please review the fix for
>>>>> test/java/net/SocketPermission/SocketPermissionTest.java, which
>>>>> fails frequently with "java.net.BindException: Address already in 
>>>>> use".
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8065076
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xiaofeya/8065076/webrev.00
>>>>
>>>> My preference is to avoid getFreePort. It is problematic and I
>>>> believe just obfuscates
>>>> the intermittent failures further.
>>>>
>>>> In many of the test scenarios the “listening” socket can be created
>>>> before the specific
>>>> access control context and associated permission are created.
>>>>
>>>> I’ll see if I can get some time to try this out.
>>>
>>> I spent a little time on this today. I basically rewrote the test, but
>>> kept the
>>> same test scenarios. The use of data providers was cute, but not 
>>> workable
>>> since there is no common supertype for the socket classes. I decided to
>>> just expand out the test cases manually. This will give the same test
>>> coverage, but should be stable since it creates the sockets first, 
>>> on an
>>> ephemeral port, and then constructs the permissions appropriately given
>>> that port.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8065076/
>>>
>>> The webrev diffs are almost useless, just review the new file, and 
>>> compare
>>> test scenarios against the what is in the old file.
>>>
>>> -Chris.
>>