RFR: 8336315: tools/jpackage/windows/WinChildProcessTest.java Failed: Check is calculator process is alive

[Alexey Semenyuk]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:20:05 GMT, Vanitha B P <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> tools/jpackage/windows/WinChildProcessTest.java was failing intermittently, fixed the issue and changes are tested.

Changes requested by asemenyuk (Reviewer).

@sashamatveev please review

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/apps/ChildProcessAppLauncher.java line 33:

> 31:             var lock = new Object();
> 32:             synchronized (lock) {
> 33:                 System.out.println("Process id=" + ProcessHandle.current().pid() + " is about to block");

This log message goes nowhere and doesn't make sense. The app launcher is not built with `--win-console` option, so it doesn't have a console, and stdout is not attached to anything that can be captured in the test output. When sketching a workaround in JBS comments section I didn't realize this log message would not be captured in the test output. I'd remove it for simplicity.

test/jdk/tools/jpackage/windows/WinChildProcessTest.java line 81:

> 79:             boolean isAlive = processHandle.isPresent()
> 80:                     && processHandle.get().isAlive();
> 81:             System.out.println("Is Alive " + isAlive);

This log statement is redundant. The following `TKit.assertTrue()` call produces enough information in the log:

[03:45:39.326] TRACE: assertEquals(0): Check command [test\output\WinChildProcessTest\WinChildProcessTest.exe](1) exited with 0 code
Is Alive true
[03:45:39.326] TRACE: assertTrue(): Check is child process is alive

It is irrelevant to this PR and is an oversight from the previous review. However, I believe it is OK to make this small change in this PR.

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20312#pullrequestreview-2197244491
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20312#issuecomment-2248468758
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20312#discussion_r1690129976
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20312#discussion_r1690115428