Martin, thanks for having a look at it.
I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the timeout measuring mechanics in
assertCompletion/assertIncompletion specifically, maybe to spot something that
is grossly inadequate.
I tried to accommodate some usual suspects of timeout measurements failures. I
understand that since we're not working with real-time systems, my attempts to
build bullet-proof measurement mechanics are futile.
-Pavel
> On 30 Aug 2019, at 18:19, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote:
>
> Not really a review, but:
>
> For many years we've been using 10 seconds (scaled by timeout factor) as a
> duration long enough that a timeout is a real failure.
> Which is close to your own 20 seconds. Of course, no value is surely safe.
>
> Probably, parallel testing infrastructure for timeouts should be a test
> library method. I do something similar in JSR166TestCase
>
> /**
> * Runs all the given actions in parallel, failing if any fail.
> * Useful for running multiple variants of tests that are
> * necessarily individually slow because they must block.
> */
> void testInParallel(Action ... actions) {
> ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
> try (PoolCleaner cleaner = cleaner(pool)) {
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 30/08/2019 13:54, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> > Updated,
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8151678/webrev.01/
> >
>
> Changes look good!
>
> best regards,
>
> -- daniel
