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

[David Holmes]

Thanks Zhengyu. I'll fix it. I want to check why we don't see them 
failing for this reason (or if we do why there is no bug filed for it!).

David

On 12/11/2018 10:17 AM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/11/18 4:47 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Bug filed: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213718
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Zhengyu
> 
>>
>> 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