RFR: 8219585: [TESTBUG] sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/JMXInterfaceBindingTest.java passes trivially when it shouldn't

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi Daniel,

Latest webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8219585/03/webrev/

It's incorporating your changes wrt. to some timeouts and asserting the
expected exit code. Instead of the ProcessThread changes, I'm using the
sendMessage() approach. That API is already there.

Unfortunately when running both SSL and plain sockets tests, it would
randomly fail for me. Even if I choose different sets of ports for
plain/ssl. So I've taken a different route of randomly selecting SSL or
plain. Overall, this should give reasonable coverage for both (plain
and SSL). This made test stability improve a lot on my Linux x86_64
machine. Ran for 100 iterations without failure.

I'll run this through jdk/submit now. Could you run this through your
test system too, please?

Would you be OK with getting this patch pushed once we'd have positive
results for both?

Thanks,
Severin

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 15:08 +0000, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> Hi Severin,
> 
> On 28/02/2019 15:47, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Yes, thanks for looking at this Daniel. That was my determination as
> > well. However, even if we do all of the above, and add a test config
> > with /etc/hosts mapping a non-loopback address to "localhost" it would
> > break other tests. E.g. this one:
> > java/net/InetAddress/GetLocalHostWithSM.java
> > 
> > So I'd have to explore whether your suggestion with
> > InetAddress.getLocalHost() is viable. It seems promising.
> > 
> > I'll keep you posted.
> 
> Thanks for keeping the investigation going!
> 
> For what it's worth this is what I have been experimenting with:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/experiment-8219585/experiment.00/
> 
> It's only a POC and obviously need more cleaning.
> Maybe some of the arbitrary timeouts in the test could be scaled
> in accordance to timeout-factor (I think there's an adjustTimeout(long)
> function somewhere in the test libs that does that).
> 
> I ran it 50 times in our test system - and it passed on all platforms,
> so there's yet hope :-)
> 
> hope this helps,
> 
> -- daniel
> 
>