Request for review: 8005618 - TEST_BUG: java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java failing intermittently (original) (raw)

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Tue Jan 15 12:41:30 UTC 2013

On 15/01/2013 9:55 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:

On 15/01/2013 01:31, David Holmes wrote:

On 15/01/2013 7:12 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:

Simple enough fix but to be honest I'm not sure any value will always work for the dead process waitFor(). Our testing infrastructure seems to glide past whatever we consider to be acceptable tolerances.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8005618/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erobm/8005618/webrev.01/> Using the latch seems reasonable but the existing wait/sleep times do not. Why waitFor(10000) if the main thread is going to interrupt you after a sleep(1000) ??? It's testing that Process.waitFor will be interrupted by Thread.interrupt so it requires a thread to block in waitFor. Using sleeps is always going to be problematic as the load on test machines is unpredictable but I think Rob's proposed change does make this test a bit more robust.

Ah I see. I'd missed that aspect of this.

Thanks for clarifying.

David

-Alan.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list