RFR(XXS): 8213707: [TEST] vmTestbase/nsk/stress/except/except011.java failed due to wrong class name

[David Holmes]

On 11/11/2018 12:03 AM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
> Hi JC,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing.
> 
> On 11/9/18 10:24 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
>> Hi Zhengyu,
>>
>> The fix looks good to me (I'm not a reviewer though ;-)), I was 
>> wondering if the other forName methods don't have the same issue:
>> except002.java:            trash = 
>> Class.forName("nsk.stress.except.except002.except002$Abra$Cadabra"); 
>> //   correct - should pass
>> except002.java://          trash = 
>> Class.forName("nsk.stress.except.except002.except002.Abra.Cadabra"); 
>> // incorrect - should fail
>> except003.java://          trash = 
>> Class.forName("nsk.stress.except.except003.except003$Abra$Cadabra"); 
>> //   correct - should pass
>> except003.java:            trash = 
>> Class.forName("nsk.stress.except.except003.except003.Abra.Cadabra"); 
>> // incorrect - should fail
> 
> I got except002 timed out, has yet gotten to it. except003 passed, will 
> check if it is due to OOM.

I would have fixed them anyway as they are obviously incorrect.

David

> This one happens to be low hanging fruit :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Zhengyu
> 
>>
>> Seems like they also have an extra exceptXXX in the name, no? 
>> Could/Should we try to fix them at the same time?
>> Jc
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM Zhengyu Gu <zgu at redhat.com 
>> <mailto:zgu at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thanks for reviewing, David.
>>
>>     On 11/9/18 5:58 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>      > Looks good - thanks for finding and fixing.
>>      >
>>      > I see cases internally where we fail because of this:
>>      >
>>      > Failure: ExceptionInInitializerError: target class not found
>>      >
>>      > but no bug was ever filed. I wonder if we will now fail because
>>     of the
>>      > OOME ...
>>
>>     Actually, it has to avoid OOME to get to here.
>>
>>     Several nsk/stress/except tests, e.g. except001, except002 and etc.
>>     depend on quick OOME to pass.
>>
>>     Shenandoah has mechanism to gradually slow down allocation, so it is
>>     more resist to OOME. Unfortunately, it usually fails due to timeout.
>>
>>     I am wondering of the usefulness of these tests.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     -Zhengyu
>>
>>      >
>>      > Thanks,
>>      > David
>>      >
>>      > On 10/11/2018 7:43 AM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>>      >> Please review this trivial fix.
>>      >>
>>      >> Currently, only Shenandoah experiences the failure, since 
>> other GCs
>>      >> run out Java heap memory, then the rest of test is skipped.
>>      >>
>>      >> E.g.
>>      >> pool[125131189]=new Object(); // elapsed 10.287s
>>      >> pool[126306334]=new Object(); // elapsed 7.947s
>>      >> Heap seems exhausted - OutOfMemoryError thrown.
>>      >> Skipped: ExceptionInInitializerError: thrown OutOfMemoryError
>>      >> Test passed.
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213707
>>      >> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8213707/webrev.00/
>>      >>
>>      >> Thanks,
>>      >>
>>      >> -Zhengyu
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jc