Can we test an object that needs initialization and teardown?

[Jerzy Krolak]

Sorry - last question was to Aleksey.

In other words - do you think setup / teardown methods would make sense in
jcstress? (I do).

Thanks,
Jerzy

śr., 10 paź 2018 o 14:00 <jcstress-dev-request at openjdk.java.net> napisał(a):

> Send jcstress-dev mailing list submissions to
>         jcstress-dev at openjdk.java.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/jcstress-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         jcstress-dev-request at openjdk.java.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         jcstress-dev-owner at openjdk.java.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of jcstress-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: How to test lock mode compatibility? (Adam Retter)
>    2. Re: How to test lock mode compatibility? (Aleksey Shipilev)
>    3. Re: Can we test an object that needs initialization and
>       teardown? (Jerzy Krolak)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:29:24 +0500
> From: Adam Retter <adam.retter at googlemail.com>
> To: Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>
> Cc: jcstress-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: How to test lock mode compatibility?
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAPK0icgGrJ08f9-pcPo_+vWbeueh9ZVX1ghyWJEbENHwgt+19Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Apologies for the name misspelling. Obviously it is Aleksey
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 19:28, Adam Retter <adam.retter at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Alexsey,
> >
> > Yes!
> >
> > As I didn't get much response here I eventually cross-posted to
> StackOverflow, where actually we discovered this through some help from
> "teppic" on StackOverflow -
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52502306/confused-by-jcstress-test-on-reentrantreadwritelocktrylock-failing/52583870?noredirect=1#comment92168301_52583870
> >
> > I guess I cannot say if this is a bug in jcstress or expected behaviour.
> That would be down to you ;-)
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 19:25, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 08/31/2018 08:12 PM, Adam Retter wrote:
> > > > Hmm, before I understand how to test with #lock(), it seems I am
> still
> > > > far from understanding JCStress or the JMM correctly. I just realised
> > > > that my ReentrantReadWriteLockBooleanCompatibilityTest actually fails
> > > > on JCStress.
> > > >
> > > > The following test fails:
> > > >
> > > > @JCStressTest
> > > > @Outcome(id = "true, false", expect = Expect.ACCEPTABLE, desc = "T1
> > > > acquired X, and T2 could not acquire X")
> > > > @Outcome(id = "false, true", expect = Expect.ACCEPTABLE, desc = "T2
> > > > acquired X and T1 could not acquire X")
> > > > public static class X_X {
> > > >     @Actor
> > > >     public void actor1(S s, ZZ_Result r) { r.r1 = s.exclusive(); }
> > > >     @Actor
> > > >     public void actor2(S s, ZZ_Result r) { r.r2 = s.exclusive(); }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > It reports, Observed forbidden state: true, true.
> > >
> > > This looks like a bug -- actors are executed by the same thread,
> probably during initial sanity
> > > checks, hm.
> > >
> > > -Aleksey
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Adam Retter
> >
> > skype: adam.retter
> > tweet: adamretter
> > http://www.adamretter.org.uk
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Retter
>
> skype: adam.retter
> tweet: adamretter
> http://www.adamretter.org.uk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:04:40 +0200
> From: Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>
> To: Adam Retter <adam.retter at googlemail.com>
> Cc: jcstress-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: How to test lock mode compatibility?
> Message-ID: <f14111dd-7d04-0c1e-6b5a-11c301dcb0ab at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On 10/09/2018 04:28 PM, Adam Retter wrote:
> > I guess I cannot say if this is a bug in jcstress or expected
> > behaviour. That would be down to you ;-)
>
> I agree, it looks like jcstress bug. Documentantion need to be explicit
> that @Actors have to execute
> by separate threads, and implementation has to follow.
>
> -Aleksey
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:13:14 +0200
> From: Jerzy Krolak <jerzykrlk at gmail.com>
> To: jcstress-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Can we test an object that needs initialization and
>         teardown?
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAEsTJtpfP_dpx-E+ruLBN5cnJxZ--P6Acybss28-gb274K4_EQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> I've had a look into that recently. It turned out that I might need a more
> generic TearDown method at the end of each fork, that would clean up all my
> mess before JVM stops.
>
> I've already implemented handling TearDown on a Fork, in a way similar to
> what I found in JMH, and it looks fine.
>
> How about SetUp / TearDown on three levels (Test, Iteration, Fork)? Would
> it look well with the rest of jcstress suite? I can try to implement these.
>
> Thanks, JK
>
>
> End of jcstress-dev Digest, Vol 32, Issue 4
> *******************************************
>