RFR 8222275: sun/security/tools/keytool/Serial64.java: assertTrue: expected true, was false

Xuelei Fan xuelei.fan at oracle.com
Sun Apr 14 04:10:19 UTC 2019



On 4/13/2019 7:17 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2019, at 1:54 AM, Xuelei Fan <Xuelei.Fan at Oracle.Com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2019, at 7:35 AM, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 12, 2019, at 10:59 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To test a 3% or 10% chance of 64-bits serial number,
>>>
>>> Can you explain what 3% or 10% you mean here?
>>>
>> I think the code is checking one 64 bits SN out of 10 or 30 SNs?
> 
> Yes, it's similar to before. I just check while generating so I can succeed early.
> 
> I think what you mean if no matter if the probability is high or low, it's still random and could fail.
I meant that no matter the test success or fail, you don't really know 
if there is a regression.

> But this time the difference is not 3 folds it's 1000000. So I think it's worth a rewrite.
> 
> I'll push it.
> 
Okay.

Xuelei

> --Max
> 
>>
>> Xuelei
>>
>>>> I don't think the test really make sense now.  I would prefer to drop this test, or just keep the positive value checking (one cert only).
>>>
>>> ...if it fails again. :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Max
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to keep it, the code looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Xuelei
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2019 12:59 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>> Please take a review at
>>>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8222275/webrev.00/
>>>>> Now the test would generate 10 to 30 certs. It could still fail, but the probably is extremely small now (2^-30 is 10^-9).
>>>>> And the test would succeed early if a 64 bit SN is found.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Max
>>>
>>
> 



More information about the security-dev mailing list