jmx-dev [PATCH] JDK-8005472: com/sun/jmx/remote/NotificationMarshalVersions/TestSerializationMismatch.sh failed on windows

[Stuart Marks]

Hi Jaroslav,

Great to see this shell test get rewritten!

Looks like you're avoiding multiple JVM processes as well, by loading the 
different versions of the classes into different classloaders. It looks like a 
bit of trouble, but probably less than the amount of trouble caused by the 
shell script.

I have a couple minor points.

The timeout value of one second seems quite low. Under normal operation, 
spawning a couple threads and should proceed very quickly. However, our testing 
environment is quite hostile, and things that seem like they ought to proceed 
quickly often take considerably longer than one might think. Since you're 
counting notifications, and in normal operation they all come in, we don't wait 
for the actual timeout unless there's a failure. So it might make sense to 
raise the timeout to 10 or perhaps 30 seconds.

On the other hand, I have a question about whether counting the number of 
notifications is correct. Would it be possible for there to be a bug where an 
extra notification is sent? If so, this might mean that the test would exit 
prematurely, indicating success?

s'marks

On 5/6/13 2:04 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On Pá 3. květen 2013, 16:16:53 CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>
>> In Client.java - you could consider replacing the AtomicLong
>> with a CountDownLatch.
>>
>> This would allow you to remove the various Thread.sleep() in the
>> code (in particular the one at the end).
>>
>> You could use CountDownLatch.await(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) to
>> avoid waiting for ever in case of bugs, and the advantage is that
>> the test would be able to exit as soon as the count down latch
>> reaches 0, without having to wait for an arbitrary timeout.
>
> Great, thanks for the pointer! I've changed the test to use the
> CountDownLatch.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8005472/webrev.08/
>
> -JB-
>
>>
>> Very nice to see a shell test go away :-)
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/13 3:41 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>> Please re-review the updated webrev
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8005472/webrev.06
>>>
>>> I've replaced the shell script with the plain java test. The javac API
>>> is used to compile the the auxiliary classes as was recommended. This
>>> allowed to simplify the test.
>>>
>>> The test does not check for a certain string in the standard output
>>> anymore - it turns out that it is possible to count the number of all
>>> the received JMX notifications (even though some notifications can be
>>> lost, we receive a special notification with the number of the lost
>>> regular notifications). It is then possible to match the actual number
>>> of processed notifications (received + lost) against the expected number
>>> - different numbers mean that the notification processing thread had
>>> been interrupted unexpectedly.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -JB-
>>>
>>> On 8.2.2013 17:37, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jon Gibbons suggested invoking the compiler API directly from java
>>>>> instead of writing a shell script. Doing this seems fairly simple,
>>>>> and I
>>>>> think it would be advantageous to keep things entirely in Java. I may
>>>>> attempt to rewrite the defaultSVID test using the compiler API.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a test that does just that.
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/file/2de8c6c2d652/test/sun/misc/JarIndex/metaInfFilenames/Basic.java
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>
>
>