RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

[Chris Hegarty]

> On 24 May 2016, at 17:21, Svetlana Nikandrova <svetlana.nikandrova at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> I hate being annoying, but may be you can find another minute to review updated diff?

This mainly look fine. Some comments:

 - The test will need to '@build jdk.testlibrary.*’ to ensure that the library classes
    are compiled. Please verify that the test can run successfully, by itself, in a 
    clean work directory.

 - You can initialize ‘expectSupport' and make it final:
     private static final boolean expectSupport = checkExpectedOptionSupport();
 
 - If you statically import SO_FLOW_SLA, then things will fit easier, e.g.

   import static jdk.net.ExtendedSocketOptions.SO_FLOW_SLA;
   …
      if (s.supportedOptions().contains(SO_FLOW_SLA) != expectSupport) {

      … and maybe drop the unnecessary braces. 

 - Can you please revert the indentation on SocketFlow.create(),
   i.e. line up the dots

-Chris.

> Thank you,
> Svetlana
> 
> On 23.05.2016 19:36, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:
>> Alan, Chris,
>> 
>> thank you for your comments. I've decided to do as Chris suggested and updated existing  test test/jdk/net/Sockets/Test.java instead of creating a new one.
>> Please see updated review:
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~snikandrova/8136933/webrev.03/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esnikandrova/8136933/webrev.03/>
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Svetlana
>> 
>> On 20.05.2016 18:19, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>> On 20 May 2016, at 14:10, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 20/05/2016 14:05, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:
>>>>> Alan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> another test related to this option is on the same level (test/jdk/net/SocketFlow)
>>> I added this recently, when working on a different issue, when I
>>> noticed that there were no tests for the SocketFllow API, regardless
>>> of the underlying system support. The test directory structure
>>> matches the class package/name hierarchy.
>>> 
>>>>> so I thought it's ok to maintain the same hierarchy. I can move test to test/jdk/net/Sockets/ExtendedSocketOptions/SO_FLOW_SLA or to test/jdk/net/Sockets, but in that case won't it be a little bit confusing?
>>>>> 
>>>>> As for overlapping coverage: existing test silently exits if option is not in supported list while this one is focused on platform support check.
>>>> I think it would be good to put all the tests in the same place, will make it easier for further maintenance in this area.
>>> The proposed new test seems, somewhat, to be a replacement for
>>> test/jdk/net/Sockets/Test.java, but it does not assert that if set
>>> succeeds that get should return something useful? Also set
>>> typically cannot succeed unless run with privileges.  The test also
>>> seems to focus on setting the option through the idk.net.Sockets API
>>> rather than through the setOption of the socket types, any reason
>>> for this? The jdk.net.Sockets API should be deprecated in 9, as
>>> we have a standard replacement.
>>> 
>>> When working in the area previously, I ran
>>> test/jdk/net/Sockets/Test.java manually and examined the output
>>> to determine that the option was being set correctly.
>>> 
>>> It this test is merely to check that the option is supported on
>>> S 11.2 +, then maybe that could be added to the existing
>>> test/jdk/net/Sockets/Test.java  ?
>>> 
>>> -Chris.
>> 
>