RFR: 8046883 com/sun/jdi/ProcessAttachTest.sh gets "java.io.IOException: Invalid process identifier" on windows

[Dmitry Samersoff]

Staffan,

Looks good for me.

-Dmitry


On 2014-07-01 15:44, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> I’m still looking for a Review of this test code.
> 
> Thanks,
> /Staffan
> 
> On 23 jun 2014, at 10:33, Staffan Larsen <staffan.larsen at oracle.com
> <mailto:staffan.larsen at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Fancy!
>>
>> new review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8046883/webrev.01/
>>
>> /Staffan
>>
>> On 18 jun 2014, at 13:59, Peter Allwin <peter.allwin at oracle.com
>> <mailto:peter.allwin at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> This looks a lot better!
>>>
>>> (Since we’re using fancy new features we could use streams to find
>>> the connector instance)
>>>
>>>         AttachingConnector ac =
>>> Bootstrap.virtualMachineManager().attachingConnectors()
>>>             .stream()
>>>             .filter(c -> c.name().equals("com.sun.jdi.ProcessAttach"))
>>>             .findFirst()
>>>             .orElseThrow(() -> new RuntimeException("Unable to locate
>>> ProcessAttachingConnector"));
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> /peter
>>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:46, Staffan Larsen <staffan.larsen at oracle.com
>>> <mailto:staffan.larsen at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a rewrite of the test in Java instead of a shell script.
>>>> Should be easier to maintain.
>>>>
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8046883/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> /Staffan
>>>>
>>>> On 17 jun 2014, at 15:12, Staffan Larsen <staffan.larsen at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:staffan.larsen at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 jun 2014, at 15:03, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
>>>>> <mailto:Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/06/2014 13:35, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be a timing issue, but in the other direction. If cygwin
>>>>>>> hasn’t yet started the real windows process when I run ps, then
>>>>>>> maybe ps will not list it. But given the “sleep 2” before the ps
>>>>>>> invocation, the process should have had time to started. No
>>>>>>> guarantees of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Making the sleep shorter will not help as the process we are
>>>>>>> starting will not terminate until we tell it to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, although what I was suggesting is to use your patch but
>>>>>> additionally move the sleep at L79 into the new while loop so that
>>>>>> it doesn't spin quickly through the 10 iterations. That would give
>>>>>> the test 10 attempts (and 10 seconds) to get the pid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, I see. I misunderstood your comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started looking at rewriting the test in pure Java instead of the
>>>>> shell script. With the new Process.getPid() this looks like the
>>>>> best approach. I’ll come back with a new review request soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Staffan
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.