RFR (S): 8022229: Intermittent test failures in sun/tools/jstatd

[Yekaterina Kantserova]

Thanks a lot for comments! Will check and change.

// Katja

On 10/16/2013 10:50 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On 15.10.2013 15:35, Yekaterina Kantserova wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could I please have a review of this fix.
>>
>> The purpose of this fix is to get rid of intermittent failures in
>> sun/tools/jstatd tests and make the tests more stable, legible and
>> maintainable.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Katja
>>
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/8022229/webrev.00/
>>
>> Primal bug:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8022229
>>
>> Similar bugs:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8019630
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6636094
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6543979
>>
>
> Hi Katja,
>
> these are my comments:
>
> test/sun/tools/jstatd/JstatdHelper.java
> =======================================
> * 82-84 Should be moved to 91 since the check is only valid for 
> Tool.RMIREGISTRY
> * Started processes are not cleaned up in case they get stuck for some 
> reason. The original test tried to explicitely kill the target processes.
>
>
> test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/Asserts.java
> =================================================
> * Missing javadoc for the public library methods
>
>
> test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/ProcessThread.java
> =======================================================
> * Missing javadoc for the public library methods
>
>
> test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/TestThread.java
> ====================================================
> * Missing javadoc for the public library methods
>
>
> test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/Utils.java
> ===============================================
> * Missing javadoc for the public library methods
>
> * 57 serverSocket.close() should be called in "finally" block to make 
> sure the resources are released even in case of an exception being thrown
>
>
> test/sun/tools/jstatd/JstatGcutilParser.java
> ============================================
> * The comments from the original test explaining the tested format are 
> missing
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -JB-