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:");




Reply via email to