RFR 8080569: (process) java/lang/ProcessBuilder/DestroyTest.java fails with "Process terminated prematurely"

[Brent Christian]

Neat!  +1

-Brent

On 1/14/19 12:05 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reviews.
> 
> As suggested, cleaned up a bit more dead wood.
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-destroytest-8080569-4/
> 
> Thanks, Roger
> 
> 
> On 01/14/2019 01:56 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Hi, Roger
>>
>> On Windows, the test did not check liveness, but will check it now; 
>> seems desirable.
>>
>> I think the changes look fine as they are.  Additional refactoring 
>> possibilities for your consideration, to take or leave:
>>     * ProcessTest::isAlive() is not used
>>     * killProc() no longer needs a boolean argument
>>     * the killProc() code could be moved into runTest()
>>
>> -Brent
>>
>> On 1/14/19 8:56 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>> Please review removing a test for Process.destroy().  [1]
>>> It fails intermittently and is based on an incorrect assumption.
>>>
>>> The child is a bash script that uses trap to ignore SIGTERM. The 
>>> child is started and then sent SIGTERM.
>>> The child should not terminate.  However, there is a race in which in 
>>> some cases the child does terminate
>>> with SIGPIPE (not SIGTERM) as a result of destroy() closing the streams.
>>>
>>> The Process implementation on Unix closes the streams after sending 
>>> the SIGTERM signal
>>> and has since (forever...).  But this behavior is not documented.
>>>
>>> This test of destroy() is invalid and should be removed. Since both 
>>> Mac OS and Windows
>>> already skip the testing of destroy() the test is simplified to 
>>> remove it from all cases.
>>>
>>> A separate issue[2] has been created to consider documenting the
>>> Process implementations' closing of the streams.
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-destroytest-8080569-2/
>>>
>>> Thanks, Roger
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080569
>>> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216990
>>>
>