[ping] Re: RFR 8049194: com/sun/tools/attach/StartManagementAgent.java start failing after JDK-8048193

[Daniel Fuchs]

On 7/25/14 2:20 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 02:15 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>
>> It looks reasonable.
>> I imagine you have run testset svc & core to verify that there's no
>> regression in other tests that use the library?
>
> Daniel, are you ok with this change? I ran JPRT for svc and core
> testsets and it didn't encounter any new failures when compared to the
> runs without this patch applied.

Oh yes of course, sorry if it wasn't clear.

best regards,

-- daniel

>
> Thanks,
>
> -JB-
>
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>> On 7/23/14 1:55 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2014 12:39 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> might I have a (R)eviewer to take a look at this? The test still fails
>>>> pretty regularly.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -JB-
>>>>
>>>> On 07/07/2014 12:15 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>> Please, review the following test change
>>>>>
>>>>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8049194
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8049194/webrev.00
>>>>>
>>>>> jdk.testlibrary.ProcessThread was erroneously starting the external
>>>>> application with timeout of -1 - meaning no waiting for the target
>>>>> application to initialize. What it should have done was to wait for
>>>>> the
>>>>> target application indefinitely and let the harness timeout the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> The change modifies jdk.testlibrary.ProcessTools.startProcess()
>>>>> methods
>>>>> to be explicit about the meaning of "-1" and "0" (newly added)
>>>>> timeouts.
>>>>> It also adds a convenient method where you can start a process waiting
>>>>> for the warmup indefinitely without actually providing "0" and a dummy
>>>>> TimeUnit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also took liberty and encapsulated the "test.timeout.factor" system
>>>>> property handling into jdk.testlibrary.Utils.adjustTimeou(to) method.
>>>>>
>>>>> The changes to the test library keep the current semantics (eg. the
>>>>> timeout of -1 still means no wait etc.) - they are only enhancing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -JB-
>>>>
>>>
>>
>