RFR: 8325579: Inconsistent behavior in com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::createSocket [v5]

[Christoph Langer]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:02:45 GMT, Aleksei Efimov <aefimov at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> As for the test, I had a closer look now and I find it hard to separate testing of [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) from [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579). Furthermore, most of the entries test things that hadn't been addressed by any of these two bugs at all.
>>>
>>> So, [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) is only tested in lines 72, 73, 76 and 77 The original problem of this issue [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579) is touched in line 71 and 73.
>>> 
>>> That means, most of the other test invocations test some generic behavior which was never erroneous so far.
>> 
>> Thanks for exploring the possibility of improving tracebility of test invocations to reported bugs.  
>> 
>>> I could, however, give each line its own test id and annotate the bugs accordingly. Do you think that makes sense?
>> 
>> It does make sense, but I'm not sure how such annotations will look like and if it will be easy to use them for debugging failures. I will leave the final decision to you here.  Your last message with linkage of test invocations to bug id is already a good information to have. 
>> 
>>> I drafted a CSR. @AlekseiEfimov, would be nice if you could review it.
>> 
>> Thanks for drafting a CSR. I will review it in comming days.
>
>> Thanks for exploring the possibility of improving tracebility of test invocations to reported bugs.
>> 
>> >
> 
> I've given this test change a second thought, maybe you can try to separate the test into two separate test classes? One possibility to avoid duplicating code and have a separate test for each bug is to introduce a base test class that will contain the common functionality for [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) and [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579) tests.

Thanks @AlekseiEfimov and @dfuch for the reviews. Submitting this now.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17797#issuecomment-2018412400