RFR JDK-8211292: [TEST] convert com/sun/jdi/DeferredStepTest.sh test

JC Beyler jcbeyler at google.com
Sat Oct 6 01:19:15 UTC 2018


Hi Alex,

Thanks also for the update; looks great to me!
Jc

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> It looks good to me.
> Thank you for the update.
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
> On 10/5/18 4:53 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
> > ok, this is updated webrev:
> >
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev.03/
> >
> > --alex
> >
> > On 10/05/2018 12:37, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> >> In general, like the suggestion from Jc with the correction for
> >> lastLine to be a local.
> >> But leave it up to Alex to decide what is better as changes would
> >> require another round of testing.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Serguei
> >>
> >> On 10/5/18 12:10 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
> >>> You're right for the single threaded part; I misread that part and
> >>> thought it would be multi-threaded as well. And fair enough for the
> >>> keeping it then as a do..while(false); it just took me a while to
> >>> figure out what was being done. You could put the data.lastLine in a
> >>> local variable and update it at the start of the method (only using
> >>> the local version for the rest of the method); then everything would
> >>> be in there. But, I'll still say it is a more a question of style :)
> >>>
> >>> LGTM,
> >>> Jc
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 12:01 PM Alex Menkov
> >>> <alexey.menkov at oracle.com <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     Hi Jc,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     On 10/05/2018 10:34, JC Beyler wrote:
> >>>     > Hi Alex,
> >>>     >
> >>>     > One question and a comment on this:
> >>>     > - I thought HashMap was not thread safe so I think you need to
> >>>     > synchronize the access to the map threadData
> >>>
> >>>     The map is accessed from a single thread (main test thread which
> >>>     sends
> >>>     jdb commands and handles jdb replies), so synchronization is not
> >>>     required.
> >>>
> >>>     >
> >>>     > - I think your test code could be simplified if you moved it
> >>> into a
> >>>     > helper method (not tested but just for example):
> >>>
> >>>     I suppose you don't like do/break/while(false)?
> >>>     To me it's quite standard method to avoid multi-level if/then/else.
> >>>     In your suggestion I don't like that processNewData() method
> >>> handles
> >>>     minLine/maxLine, but doesn't handle lastLine (i.e. it doesn't do
> >>> all
> >>>     processing). But if "data.lastLine = lineNum" is moved into the
> >>>     method,
> >>>     we need something like do/break/while(false) in the method.
> >>>
> >>>     --alex
> >>>
> >>>     >
> >>>     > +    private void next() {
> >>>     > +        List<String> reply = jdb.command(JdbCommand.next());
> >>>     > +        /*
> >>>     > +         * Each "next" produces something like ("Breakpoint
> >>>     hit" line
> >>>     > only if the line has BP)
> >>>     > +         *   Step completed:
> >>>     > +         *     Breakpoint hit: "thread=jj2",
> >>>     > DeferredStepTestTarg$jj2.run(), line=74 bci=12
> >>>     > +         *     74                    ++count2;
> >>>     >   // @2 breakpoint
> >>>     > +         *     <empty line>
> >>>     > +         *     jj2[1]
> >>>     > +         */
> >>>     > +        // detect thread from the last line
> >>>     > +        String lastLine = reply.get(reply.size() - 1);
> >>>     > +        String threadName = parse(threadRegexp, lastLine);
> >>>     > +        String wholeReply =
> >>>     > reply.stream().collect(Collectors.joining(Utils.NEW_LINE));
> >>>     > +        int lineNum = Integer.parseInt(parse(lineRegexp,
> >>>     wholeReply));
> >>>     > +
> >>>     > +        System.out.println("got: thread=" + threadName + ",
> >>>     line=" +
> >>>     > lineNum);
> >>>     > +
> >>>     > +        ThreadData data = threadData.get(threadName);
> >>>     > +        if (data == null) {
> >>>     > +            data = new ThreadData();
> >>>     > +            threadData.put(threadName, data);
> >>>     > +        }
> >>>     > +        processNewData(data, threadName, lineNum);
> >>>     > +        data.lastLine = lineNum;
> >>>     > +    }
> >>>     > +
> >>>     > +  private void processNewData(ThreadData data, String
> >>>     threadName, int
> >>>     > lineNum) {
> >>>     > +        if (data.lastLine < 0) {
> >>>     > +            // the 1st stop in the thread
> >>>     > +            return;
> >>>     > +        }
> >>>     > +
> >>>     > +        if (lineNum == data.lastLine + 1) {
> >>>     > +            // expected.
> >>>     > +            return;
> >>>     > +        }
> >>>     > +
> >>>     > +        if (lineNum < data.lastLine) {
> >>>     > +            // looks like step to the beginning of the cycle
> >>>     > +            if (data.minLine > 0) {
> >>>     > +               // minLine and maxLine are not set - verify
> >>>     > +               Asserts.assertEquals(lineNum, data.minLine,
> >>>     threadName +
> >>>     > " - minLine");
> >>>     > +               Asserts.assertEquals(data.lastLine, data.maxLine,
> >>>     > threadName + " - maxLine");
> >>>     > +            } else {
> >>>     > +                // set minLine/maxLine
> >>>     > +                data.minLine = lineNum;
> >>>     > +                data.maxLine = data.lastLine;
> >>>     > +           }
> >>>     > +           return;
> >>>     > +        }
> >>>     > +
> >>>     > +        throw new RuntimeException(threadName + " (line " +
> >>>     lineNum +
> >>>     > ") - unexpected."
> >>>     > +            + " lastLine=" + data.lastLine + ", minLine=" +
> >>>     > data.minLine + ", maxLine=" + data.maxLine);
> >>>     > + }
> >>>     >
> >>>     > Thanks,
> >>>     > Jc
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:31 PM <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
> >>>     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>
> >>>     > <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
> >>>     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>>> wrote:
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     Hi Alex,
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     It looks good to me.
> >>>     >     Could you, please, also remove the line? :
> >>>     >
> >>>     >        156             //
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     No need in new webrev.
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     Thanks,
> >>>     >     Serguei
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     On 10/4/18 4:11 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
> >>>     >      > Hi Serguei,
> >>>     >      >
> >>>     >      > Updated webrev:
> >>>     >      >
> >>>     >
> >>>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev.02/
> >>> <
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eamenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev.02/
> >
> >>>     >
> >>>  <
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eamenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev.02/
> >
> >>>     >      >
> >>>     >      > Fixed all issues except
> >>>     >      >  140                 // the 1st stop in the thread
> >>>     >      >  141                 break;
> >>>     >      > In this case the comment is an explanation why we reach
> >>> the
> >>>     >     block, not
> >>>     >      > an explanation for the "break" statement.
> >>>     >      >
> >>>     >      > --alex
> >>>     >      >
> >>>     >      > On 10/04/2018 13:56, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
> >>>     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>
> >>>     >     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
> >>>     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >>>     >      >> Hi Alex,
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> Several minor suggestions.
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> 77 new Thread(aRP, "jj1").start();
> >>>     >      >> 78 new Thread(asRP, "jj2").start(); What mean aRP and
> >>>     asRP? In
> >>>     >     fact,
> >>>     >      >> it is confusing. Can they be renamed to something like
> >>>     obj1 and
> >>>     >     obj2.
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> 79 // new Thread(aRP, "jj3").start();
> >>>     >      >> 80 // new Thread(asRP, "jj4").start();
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >>   These lines can be removed.
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> 94 // line of the last stop
> >>>     >      >> 95 int lastLine = -1;
> >>>     >      >> 96 // min line (-1 means "not known yet")
> >>>     >      >> 97 int minLine = -1;
> >>>     >      >> 98 // max line (-1 means "not known yet")
> >>>     >      >> 99 int maxLine = -1; ... 140 // the 1st stop in the
> >>> thread
> >>>     >      >> 141 break;
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >>    I'd suggest the refactor above as below:
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> int lastLine = -1;  // line of the last stop
> >>>     >      >> int minLine = -1;  // min line (-1 means "not known yet")
> >>>     >      >> int maxLine = -1;// max line (-1 means "not known yet")
> >>>     >      >>   ...
> >>>     >      >> break;  // the 1st stop in the thread
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> 116 private void next() {
> >>>     >      >> 117 List<String> reply = jdb.command(JdbCommand.next());
> >>>     >      >> 118 /* each "next" produces something like ("Breakpoint
> >>>     hit" line
> >>>     >      >> only if the line has BP)
> >>>     >      >> 119 Step completed:
> >>>     >      >> 120 Breakpoint hit: "thread=jj2",
> >>>     DeferredStepTestTarg$jj2.run(),
> >>>     >      >> line=74 bci=12
> >>>     >      >> 121 74 ++count2; // @2 breakpoint
> >>>     >      >> 122 <empty line>
> >>>     >      >> 123 jj2[1]
> >>>     >      >> 124 */ It would better to have it in this style: 118 /*
> >>>     * Each
> >>>     >     "next"
> >>>     >      >> produces something like ("Breakpoint hit" line only if
> >>>     the line
> >>>     >     has BP).
> >>>     >      >> 119 * Step completed:
> >>>     >      >> 120 * Breakpoint hit: "thread=jj2",
> >>>     DeferredStepTestTarg$jj2.run(),
> >>>     >      >> line=74 bci=12
> >>>     >      >> 121 * 74 ++count2; // @2 breakpoint
> >>>     >      >> 122 * <empty line>
> >>>     >      >> 123 * jj2[1]
> >>>     >      >> 124 */
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> Otherwise, it looks Okay to me.
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> Thanks,
> >>>     >      >> Serguei
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >      >> On 10/3/18 5:49 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
> >>>     >      >>> Hi all,
> >>>     >      >>>
> >>>     >      >>> please review a fix for
> >>>     >      >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211292
> >>>     >      >>> webrev:
> >>>     >      >>>
> >>>     >
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev/
> >>> <
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eamenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev/>
> >>>     >
> >>>  <
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eamenkov/sh2java/DeferredStep_final/webrev/>
> >>>     >      >>>
> >>>     >      >>> The fix converts manual shell test to automatic java
> >>>     (as Java
> >>>     >     allows
> >>>     >      >>> to parse jdb replies much easier).
> >>>     >      >>> This is the last sub-task for the "shell to java
> >>>     conversion" task,
> >>>     >      >>> so the fix also removes shared shell scripts.
> >>>     >      >>>
> >>>     >      >>> --alex
> >>>     >      >>
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     > --
> >>>     >
> >>>     > Thanks,
> >>>     > Jc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jc
> >>
>
>

-- 

Thanks,
Jc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20181005/600c2e19/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list