[8u] RFR: 8249677: Regression after JDK-8237117: Better ForkJoinPool behavior

[Andrew Hughes]

On 22/07/2020 06:15, Anton Kozlov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21.07.2020 23:27, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> As regards the second issue which also applies to 11u, I suggest filing
>> a separate bug for that to avoid confusion.
> 
> Thanks, makes sense. It is JDK-8249846: Change of behavior after JDK-8237117
> 
>>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akozlov/8249677/webrev.01/
>>
>> I'm happy for this to go into 8u-dev. Please flag the bug
>> jdk8u-fix-request and I'll approve.
> 
> I have to disable the second test case to avoid committing failing test.
> Sorry for my rush, disabled test case is 
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akozlov/8249677/webrev.02/
> 
> The difference between webrev.01 and .02 is below.
> I'll flag the the bug immediately after review of this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anton
> 
> diff -r dc7b3f5b37dc test/java/util/concurrent/forkjoin/AccessControlContext.java
> --- a/test/java/util/concurrent/forkjoin/AccessControlContext.java	Mon Jul 20 11:24:32 2020 +0300
> +++ b/test/java/util/concurrent/forkjoin/AccessControlContext.java	Wed Jul 22 08:12:07 2020 +0300
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>  
>  /*
>   * @test
> - * @bug 8249677
> + * @bug 8249677 8249846
>   * @summary AccessControlContext should not be dropped in ForkJoinThread
>   * @run main/othervm/policy=AccessControlContext.policy/timeout=20 AccessControlContext inherit
>   * @run main/othervm/policy=AccessControlContext.policy/timeout=20 AccessControlContext default
> @@ -90,7 +90,10 @@
>              testInherit();
>              break;
>          case "default":
> -            testDefault();
> +            // Case fails because of "JDK-8249846: Change of behavior after
> +            // JDK-8237117: Better ForkJoinPool behavior".
> +            System.out.println("Disabled: known to fail since 8u262 (see JDK-8249846)");
> +            //testDefault();
>              break;
>          }
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

I think this is wrong. The whole purpose of having a test is to catch
bugs. The test *should* be failing until either a fix is in place or we
make a decision to not fix it.

I'm fine with adding the bug ID, comment and output that will help
anyone running the test know we're aware of the issue. I'd also still
like to see the comment added I suggested in my first review of this [0].

[0] https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2020-July/012198.html

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
OpenJDK Package Owner
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222