RFR(9): 8177092: [TESTBUG] JMX test on MinimalVM fails after fix for 8176533

[Robbin Ehn]

Hi David,

On 03/21/2017 10:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Robbin,
>
> On 21/03/2017 7:22 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>> +                .shouldNotContain("^" +
>> Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()) + "\\s+.*$");
>
> Maybe I'm looking at the wrong version but OutputAnalyzer.*Contain only take a string for a substring match, and you need to use  *Match(String pattern) to pass in a regexp?

No you are looking at the correct version. I was looking at shouldNotMatch, but never changed it, thanks for catching this!

+                .shouldNotMatch("^" + Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()) + "\\s+.*$");

/Robbin


>
> David
>
>> Missed space after + sign
>>
>> /Robbin
>>
>> On 03/21/2017 10:19 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>> Hi David, thanks for looking at this!
>>>
>>> On 03/21/2017 02:32 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Hi Robbin,
>>>>
>>>> The approach seems reasonable, but my concern is that you may get a
>>>> false match if there is some java process running that happens to
>>>> have a numeric argument that matches
>>>> the target PID, or perhaps more likely (though still remote) your
>>>> target PID is a small number and then becomes a substring of another
>>>> PID.
>>>
>>> Since I never even see even 3-digits pid, it kinda slip my mind.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you actually parse the list and check the PID value for an exact
>>>> match? Or perhaps simply use shouldNotMatch with a pattern that only
>>>> matches an exact numeric value at
>>>> the start of a line?
>>>
>>> Yes of course!
>>>
>>> /Robbin
>>>
>>> diff -r 03f4b62f3562 test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java
>>> --- a/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Wed Mar 15 18:18:04 2017 -0700
>>> +++ b/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Tue Mar 21 10:11:47 2017 +0100
>>> @@ -49,6 +49,5 @@
>>>
>>> -        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>>> Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()), "VM.print_threads"});
>>> +        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>>> "-l"});
>>>          new OutputAnalyzer(pb.start())
>>> -                .shouldContain("Could not find any processes matching ")
>>> -                .shouldHaveExitValue(1);
>>> +                .shouldNotContain("^"
>>> +Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()) + "\\s+.*$");
>>>      }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2017 12:40 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>>>> Hi all, please review,
>>>>>
>>>>> 8156537 added a verification that <pid> was an attachable VM.
>>>>> The verification caused a regression because of an underlying bug in an
>>>>> AttachProvider.
>>>>> So the verification was removed for pid case in 8176533.
>>>>> It will be put back when we have fixed: 8176828 (the faulty
>>>>> AttachProvider)
>>>>>
>>>>> This test was written when we had the verification of VM before
>>>>> blasting
>>>>> SIGQUIT and waiting for socket to open.
>>>>> Since we do not verify that the process is suppose to be attachable,
>>>>> jcmd will think that socket should open, which leads to timeout in jcmd
>>>>> for all non-attachable processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The test is suppose to verify that the minimal VM do not have attach
>>>>> API.
>>>>> I change the test to just list attachable VM's and verify that this
>>>>> minimal VM is not among them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177092
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested locally and with rbt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> /Robbin
>>>>>
>>>>> diff -r 03f4b62f3562 test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java
>>>>> --- a/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Wed Mar 15 18:18:04 2017 -0700
>>>>> +++ b/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Mon Mar 20 15:22:44 2017 +0100
>>>>> @@ -49,6 +49,5 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> -        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>>>>> Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()), "VM.print_threads"});
>>>>> +        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>>>>> "-l"});
>>>>>          new OutputAnalyzer(pb.start())
>>>>> -                .shouldContain("Could not find any processes
>>>>> matching ")
>>>>> -                .shouldHaveExitValue(1);
>>>>> +
>>>>> .shouldNotContain(Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()));