8205054: Could not find "lsof" on test machine

Mikael Vidstedt mikael.vidstedt at oracle.com
Mon Jun 18 23:43:33 UTC 2018 

Two minor things which can be done as follow-ups if we want to get the fix pushed quickly:


+        if (isWindows() == false && lsofCommand().isPresent() == false) {

Booleans are not normally compared with explicit values, so for consistency with the other checks in the code I’d suggest changing that to:

if (!isWindows() && !lsofCommand().isPresent()) {


Also, there is already an isWindows() method in test/lib/jdk/test/lib/Platform.java which would probably be better to (re-)use.


Apart from that it looks good!

Cheers,
Mikael


> On Jun 15, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Leo Korinth <leo.korinth at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi David and Goetz.
> 
> I have added the last caching thing David asked for. Are you also okay with the changes Goetz?
> 
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/02_03/ (incremental)
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/03/    (full)
> 
> I also noticed that my test case unfortunately runs in many tiers. But that is nothing that is special to my test case but is shared between most test cases that are selected by being under "runtime/". I do not feel qualified in doing changes there, and maybe there is a reason for it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Leo
> 
> On 15/06/18 11:56, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Leo,
>> On 15/06/2018 7:37 PM, Leo Korinth wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the input, it makes the test case _much_ better. Unfortunately it is easy to get blind when you are in a hurry and responsible for a failing test case. It is of course much better to look for the command at start.
>>> 
>>> New output:
>>> 
>>>      STDOUT:
>>>      Could not find lsof like command
>>>      Exit test case as successful though it could not verify anything
>>>      STDERR:
>>> 
>>>      JavaTest Message:  Test complete.
>> Much clearer - thanks!
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/01_02/ (incremental)
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/02/    (full)
>> Generally looks good. Only nit is that the lsofCommand() result should be cached in a field so you don't need to recalculate it for the actual execution.
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>> Testing:
>>> Tested on my GNU/Linux machine and currently running a mach5 test (mostly for verifying the windows part)
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Leo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/06/18 10:40, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>> 
>>>> Inine ...
>>>> 
>>>> On 15/06/2018 6:06 PM, Leo Korinth wrote:
>>>>> Hi David.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15/06/18 04:08, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry after doing more testing and looking at the output I think we need to do better. For a machine with no lsof we see:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> using command: <not found>
>>>> 
>>>> That looks like an error ...
>>>> 
>>>>>> (Second VM) Open file descriptors:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> using command: <not found>
>>>> 
>>>> That looks like an error too - but why did we keep going after the first error?
>>>>>> (Third VM) Open file descriptors:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> VM RESULT => RETAINS FD
>>>>>> VM RESULT => VM EXIT
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Log file was not inherited by third VM
>>>> 
>>>> But that's not true - we couldn't determine anything! So this looks like an accidental pass rather than an deliverate skip.
>>>> 
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That looks like an error is occurring to me and that we pass by accident. I think we need to terminate the test, cleanly of course, as soon as we can't find the tool and report that the test can't run because of that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> David
>>>>> 
>>>>> I could change the output to "using command: <not found, terminating test as successful as we can not finish it in a meaningful way>" or maybe something else that you prefer that is better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do believe this is the easy way to terminate the test cleanly without leaving running JVMs. We need to communicate back to the first JVM that the test was successful. Is it the string "<not found>" that looks like an error and that we pass by accident? Or is it something in the test case code that looks fishy?
>>>> 
>>>> See above.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd suggest locating the command as one of the first things in the test in the first VM and then bail out if not found.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> ------
>>>> 
>>>>> Or maybe the comment should be improved?
>>>>>    // if command can not be found return list without log file (some machines does not have "lsof" in the expected place). (add this->)The empty list will make the test exit successfully.(<-add this)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 15/06/2018 11:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is what I was concerned about - and yes the CI testing did shake it out in a few cycles.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree with the fix and will sponsor it for you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks David.
>>>>> /Leo
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 15/06/2018 3:31 AM, Leo Korinth wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 14/06/18 19:10, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> the fix looks good.  It makes sense to skip a test if the infrastructure is
>>>>>>>>> insufficient to run it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Could you please put the long comment at the end of line 179
>>>>>>>>> into a line of it's own?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Fixed
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Also, please take the chance and move the Copyright message
>>>>>>>>> to the beginning of the file.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Fixed
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>    Goetz.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the fast review; I need a second reviewer and someone to help me push (I am not a commiter).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> New webrevs:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/00_01/ (incremental)
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/01/    (full)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-
>>>>>>>>>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Leo Korinth
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 18:55
>>>>>>>>>> To: Hotspot dev runtime <hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RFR: 8205054: Could not find "lsof" on test machine
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately some test machines does not have "lsof" installed, or it
>>>>>>>>>> can not be found.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I do not know how to find "lsof" on the test machine where the test
>>>>>>>>>> fails; the command might not be installed. Here is a fix to make the
>>>>>>>>>> test case succeed if "lsof" can not be found. I believe it is the best
>>>>>>>>>> option (at least for now). I am sorry for all the noise I am generating.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205054
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8205054/00/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Testing:
>>>>>>>>>> I have tested this on my machine, and I have a mach5 test job running.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Leo

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list