RFR 8066708: JMXStartStopTest fails to connect to port 38112

[Jaroslav Bachorik]

On 2.2.2015 23:09, Stuart Marks wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/15 2:33 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> I've applied your comments and the code is a tad simpler now. I also
>> ironed out
>> a few more corner cases. I ran the test 500x in a tight loop and no
>> failure, yay!
>>
>> Update: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8066708/webrev.04
>
> Hi Jaroslav,
>
> Looks quite a bit more straightforward now. I'm pretty much OK with this
> if you're OK with it; I think I've reviewed it enough times already. :-)
>
> I have a couple comments on test_09 that you might want to address
> before you push or sometime in the future.
>
> Line 714 typo "hugging" => "hogging"
D'oh. Thanks.

>
> But I'm not convinced this retry logic in the while-loop from lines
> 716-723 is necessary. If you've already opened a server socket on a
> port, I've never seen a case where opening the same port *again* will
> succeed, so why bother?

I saw the test failing without this retry logic. The purpose is to make 
sure that the port is really taken before the test continues.

>
> I'd suggest simply opening ServerSocket(0) and then getting the port via
> getLocalPort(). I've never seen this fail. This case should work since
> you actually want to open up some random port, instead of generating a
> random port number for somebody else (the subprocess) to open. You can
> then allocate one fewer random port. You might want to have a little
> loop to check that the random port number isn't a duplicate of the
> actual port that you just opened. I think this lets the code boil down a
> bit further:
>
>      ServerSocket ss = new ServerSocket(0);
>      try {
>          int localPort = ss.getLocalPort();
>          int[] ports;
>          do {
>              ports = PortAllocator.allocatePorts(1);
>          } while (localPort != ports[0]);
>
>          AtomicBoolean checks = new AtomicBoolean(false);
>          ...
>      } finally {
>          ss.close();
>          s.stop();
>      }

I'll give it a try and see how this behaves.

Thanks,

-JB-

>
>
> s'marks
>