RFR: (small): JDK-8190307: SA: Sanity tests for the clhsdb commands: universe, intconstant, type

[David Holmes]

Hi Jini,

On 3/11/2017 8:51 PM, Jini George wrote:
> Here is the updated webrev:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8190307/webrev.01/
> 
> I have made changes to validate the test results of each command 
> separately, done away with the asserts and have added some more comments.

This looks much better to me - thanks. This fragment:

           int exitValue = p.exitValue();
           OutputAnalyzer output = new OutputAnalyzer(p);
           System.out.println(output.getOutput());

           if (exitValue != 0) {
               throw new Error("clhsdb wasn't run successfully.");
           }

can be reduced to:

OutputAnalyzer output = new OutputAnalyzer(p);
output.shouldHaveExitValue(0);

There's probably no need to print getOutput() as if anything goes wrong 
it will be printed by OutputAnalyzer anyway. But that's your choice.

It may also be advisable to ensure the process is destroyed if you get 
an exception here:

          try {
              p.waitFor();
          } catch (InterruptedException ie) {
+            p.destroyForcibly();
              throw new Error("Problem awaiting the child process: " + 
ie, ie);
          }

similar to how ProcessTools.executeProcess manages things.

Thanks,
David
-----

> Thank you,
> Jini.
> 
> On 10/31/2017 12:32 PM, Jini George wrote:
>> Thank you for the quick review, David. My comments inline:
>>
>> On 10/30/2017 11:18 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>
>>>> Plus this assumes G1 is being used but Lingered App is started using 
>>>> the test run vmOptions AFAICS so it would use whatever GC were 
>>>> passed through, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> Okay the above are just examples of "int constants" that will be 
>>> printed when you dump all the "int constants". The G1 constant 
>>> doesn't indicate (I presume) that G1 is the active GC.
>>
>> Yes, the int constants contain compile time values and there are 
>> entries for all the GC types.
>>
>>> As I said to Sharath it would be good to validate the results of each 
>>> command separately rather than collectively.
>>
>> Will do.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> - Jini.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> TestType.java
>>>>
>>>> The expected output is not quite so strange, but still could do with 
>>>> some commentary.
>>>>
>>>>    90         Asserts.assertTrue(output.contains("type 
>>>> G1CollectedHeap CollectedHeap"));
>>>>
>>>> Same comment about assuming G1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>> On 30/10/2017 1:44 PM, Jini George wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been working on writing sanity tests for the various jhsdb 
>>>>> clhsdb commands of the SA to improve the robustness of the SA. As a 
>>>>> part of this, here is a webrev for sanity tests for 3 of the clhsdb 
>>>>> commands:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug ID: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8190307
>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8190307/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to request for reviews for this simple addition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Jini.