Hi Hamlin,
Yes, the logic would be clearer; and I would also remove the (now)
redundant checking.
Roger
On 12/15/2016 9:42 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Hi Roger, Daniel,
Thank you for reviewing.
On 2016/12/15 22:45, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Hamlin,
If this is supposed to fix the call from line 68: then doesn't the
test for reg != null
at line 70 already have the same effect?
Please consider the situation: LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port) in
createReg(true, port) does not throw exception but just return null
when remoteOk is true. this case is missed by current test. Although
we know that should not happen by checking the product code, but the
test should not assume how it is implemented.
And I think the patch will make logic more clear, maybe we could
remove the check of reg != null at the same time after modify the code
in createReg(...).
Thank you
-Hamlin
Roger
On 12/14/2016 10:19 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Would you please review the below patch?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171133
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8171133/webrev.00/
java/rmi/registry/reexport/Reexport.java, there is a missing case
check in createReg(..): if LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port)
return null when port is in use.
Thank you
-Hamlin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff -r ddd192238fcb test/java/rmi/registry/reexport/Reexport.java
--- a/test/java/rmi/registry/reexport/Reexport.java Tue Dec 13
18:47:23 2016 -0800
+++ b/test/java/rmi/registry/reexport/Reexport.java Wed Dec 14
19:06:40 2016 -0800
@@ -105,6 +105,9 @@
try {
reg = LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port);
+ if (remoteOk) {
+ TestLibrary.bomb("Remote registry is up, an
Exception is expected!");
+ }
} catch (Throwable e) {
if (remoteOk) {
System.err.println("EXPECTING PORT IN USE
EXCEPTION:");