RFR 8164533: [TEST_BUG] sun/security/ssl/SSLSocketImpl/CloseSocket.java failed with "Error while cleaning up threads after test"

[Artem Smotrakov]

Hi Xuelei,

I am not sure why you think it's too strong to follow to it. To me it's 
pretty easy to see if a test calls System.setProperty() or 
Security.setProperty() methods which modify default JSSE configuration.

Is there any other way to modify default JSSE configuration, so that it 
can't be changes then?

Artem


On 08/25/2016 12:43 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 2:06 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I think Artem is correct here.
>>
>> All those tests that modify static fields should run in othervm mode, so
>> that *each* runs in its *own* VM.  All other tests, which make no such
>> modifications, can share the *same* VM using agentvm.
>>
> It's too strong to follow.  And it is not easy to know there is no 
> static fields update in a test case.
>
> Xuelei
>
>> On 8/25/2016 13:31, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2016 12:31 PM, Artem Smotrakov wrote:
>>>> Those tests which modify default JSSE parameters should be run in
>>>> othervm mode. But other tests which don't do that can be safely run in
>>>> agent VM. This test doesn't seem to modify any default JSSE parameter.
>>>>
>>> If this test get booted, other test that need to do more customization
>>> may not work any more.
>>>
>>> For example, boolean variable A is a singleton static field, default is
>>> true.  If A get initialized in default mode, it is "true".  It is not
>>> possible to customize it to "false" any more in other test in
>>> agentvm/samevm mode.
>>
>> Shouldn't these "other" tests run in othervm mode?
>>
>> Or, do you mean that even if a JSSE test does not modify a static field
>> inside the test, it will modify some through innocent JSSE calls, so no
>> JSSE test should ever run in agentvm?
>>
>> I find this unnatural.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>>>
>>> This test has no impact in agentvm/samevm mode unless no test run in
>>> agentvm/samevm mode or all tests run in agentvm/samevm mode has the 
>>> same
>>> configuration as this one.   This assumption is too strong to follow.
>>>
>>> Xuelei
>>>
>>>> Artem