RFR: 8244010: Simplify usages of ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder in our tests
Stefan Karlsson
stefan.karlsson at oracle.com
Wed Apr 29 06:36:10 UTC 2020
On 2020-04-29 07:37, Ioi Lam wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> For a future RFE, I would suggesting adding a new function
>
> ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(Object... args)
>
> Every argument must be a String, a String[], a List<String>, or NULL.
>
> You can simplified code like this:
>
> static ProcessBuilder exec(String... args) throws Exception {
> List<String> argsList = new ArrayList<>();
> Collections.addAll(argsList, args);
> Collections.addAll(argsList, "-Xmn8m");
> if (cond) {
> Collections.addAll(argsList, "-Dtest.classes=" +
> System.getProperty("test.classes","."));
> }
> Collections.addAll(argsList,
> ClassUnloadTestMain.class.getName());
> return ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(argsList);
> }
>
> to this:
>
> static ProcessBuilder exec(String... args) throws Exception {
> return ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(
> args,
> "-Xmn8m",
> (cond) ? "-Dtest.classes=" + System.getProperty("test.classes",".") :
> NULL,
> ClassUnloadTestMain.class.getName());
> }
>
> We can probably allow higher-level dimensions like Object[][], as long
> as the eventual element type is a String.
>
> What do you think?
I had similar thoughts while doing this patch. I'm on the fence about
this. It makes the call sites much nicer, but it makes the API less
clear and more error-prone.
StefanK
>
> - Ioi
>
>
>
> On 4/28/20 6:54 AM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I realized that we probably want to give ProcessTools.executeTestJvm
>> the same treatment.
>>
>> Side-note: It's very awkard that createJavaProcessBuilder defaults to
>> not adding user-specifed flags, but executeTestJvm does. I think it
>> would be good to unify this as a separate RFE. I think *a lot* of
>> callers to createJavaProcessBuilder could be simplified by either
>> using executeTestJvm directly, or a simplified version of that.
>>
>> I'm running testing through mach5 and found a few things to fix, I
>> might find more when the testing has proceeded further.
>>
>> This is the current patch:
>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8244010/webrev.02.delta
>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8244010/webrev.02
>>
>> Thanks,
>> StefanK
>>
>> On 2020-04-28 13:58, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Please review this patch to simplify usages of
>>> ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder in our tests.
>>>
>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8244010/webrev.01/
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244010
>>>
>>> I saw all this code when reviewing changes to how we pass flags in
>>> our tests. There are a many places where arguments are converted and
>>> passed back and forth in String[] and Collections.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>> ProcessBuilder pb = ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(
>>> argsList.toArray(new String[argsList.size()]));
>>>
>>> If we add an overload the createJavaProcessBuilder, that takes a
>>> Collection<String> as an argument, then we can write the code above as:
>>> ProcessBuilder pb = ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(argsList);
>>>
>>> Other places temporarily put the flags in a String[], where most
>>> calls simply lists the arguments in the call:
>>> String[] opts = {Xmx, "-XX:NativeMemoryTracking=detail",
>>> "-XX:+UseParallelGC", "-version"};
>>> ProcessBuilder pb = ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(opts);
>>>
>>> And some places put the args in a temporary Collection:
>>> LinkedList<String> vmOptions = new LinkedList<>();
>>> vmOptions.add(gc);
>>> vmOptions.add("-Xmx" + minMaxHeap);
>>> vmOptions.add("-XX:+PrintFlagsFinal");
>>> vmOptions.add(VerifyHeapSize.class.getName());
>>>
>>> ProcessBuilder pb =
>>> ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder(vmOptions.toArray(new
>>> String[0]));
>>>
>>> I'd like to cleanup, simplify, and unify many of these usages.
>>>
>>> I've tested this by running all the changed tests locally.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> StefanK
>>
>
More information about the hotspot-dev
mailing list