RFR(9): 8177092: [TESTBUG] JMX test on MinimalVM fails after fix for 8176533

[David Holmes]

Hi Robbin,

On 21/03/2017 7:22 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> +                .shouldNotContain("^" +
> Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()) + "\\s+.*$");

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong version but OutputAnalyzer.*Contain only 
take a string for a substring match, and you need to use  *Match(String 
pattern) to pass in a regexp?

David

> Missed space after + sign
>
> /Robbin
>
> On 03/21/2017 10:19 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Hi David, thanks for looking at this!
>>
>> On 03/21/2017 02:32 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Robbin,
>>>
>>> The approach seems reasonable, but my concern is that you may get a
>>> false match if there is some java process running that happens to
>>> have a numeric argument that matches
>>> the target PID, or perhaps more likely (though still remote) your
>>> target PID is a small number and then becomes a substring of another
>>> PID.
>>
>> Since I never even see even 3-digits pid, it kinda slip my mind.
>>
>>>
>>> Can you actually parse the list and check the PID value for an exact
>>> match? Or perhaps simply use shouldNotMatch with a pattern that only
>>> matches an exact numeric value at
>>> the start of a line?
>>
>> Yes of course!
>>
>> /Robbin
>>
>> diff -r 03f4b62f3562 test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java
>> --- a/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Wed Mar 15 18:18:04 2017 -0700
>> +++ b/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Tue Mar 21 10:11:47 2017 +0100
>> @@ -49,6 +49,5 @@
>>
>> -        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>> Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()), "VM.print_threads"});
>> +        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>> "-l"});
>>          new OutputAnalyzer(pb.start())
>> -                .shouldContain("Could not find any processes matching ")
>> -                .shouldHaveExitValue(1);
>> +                .shouldNotContain("^"
>> +Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()) + "\\s+.*$");
>>      }
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 21/03/2017 12:40 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>>> Hi all, please review,
>>>>
>>>> 8156537 added a verification that <pid> was an attachable VM.
>>>> The verification caused a regression because of an underlying bug in an
>>>> AttachProvider.
>>>> So the verification was removed for pid case in 8176533.
>>>> It will be put back when we have fixed: 8176828 (the faulty
>>>> AttachProvider)
>>>>
>>>> This test was written when we had the verification of VM before
>>>> blasting
>>>> SIGQUIT and waiting for socket to open.
>>>> Since we do not verify that the process is suppose to be attachable,
>>>> jcmd will think that socket should open, which leads to timeout in jcmd
>>>> for all non-attachable processes.
>>>>
>>>> The test is suppose to verify that the minimal VM do not have attach
>>>> API.
>>>> I change the test to just list attachable VM's and verify that this
>>>> minimal VM is not among them.
>>>>
>>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177092
>>>>
>>>> Tested locally and with rbt.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> /Robbin
>>>>
>>>> diff -r 03f4b62f3562 test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java
>>>> --- a/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Wed Mar 15 18:18:04 2017 -0700
>>>> +++ b/test/runtime/MinimalVM/JMX.java    Mon Mar 20 15:22:44 2017 +0100
>>>> @@ -49,6 +49,5 @@
>>>>
>>>> -        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>>>> Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()), "VM.print_threads"});
>>>> +        pb.command(new String[] { JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("jcmd"),
>>>> "-l"});
>>>>          new OutputAnalyzer(pb.start())
>>>> -                .shouldContain("Could not find any processes
>>>> matching ")
>>>> -                .shouldHaveExitValue(1);
>>>> +
>>>> .shouldNotContain(Long.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId()));