[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4700?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kristian Waagan updated DERBY-4700:
-----------------------------------
Attachment: derby-4700-1b.diff
Thanks, Dag.
I have attached patch 1b, where I reverted to the idom used elsewhere (the "" +
was just to shorten the line :) ), and I also added a println method in
TestConfiguration (TC). Not quite sure about it yet, but it did at least made
it clear to me that we are creating two TC instances - so we end up with two
JMX ports and two bogus ports. I guess one is for the embedded configuration,
the other for the client.
Do we need a bogus port for an embedded TC?
What about a JMX port?
I'm a bit in a hurry right now, but will return to this later.
> Add method to obtain a bogus port in TestConfiguration
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4700
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4700
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Test
> Affects Versions: 10.7.0.0
> Reporter: Kristian Waagan
> Assignee: Kristian Waagan
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: derby-4700-1a.diff, derby-4700-1b.diff
>
>
> In some cases one needs to obtain a port number on which there is no Derby
> network server.
> Today this is solved in an ad-hoc way, for instance by using the current port
> minus one. When running tests in parallel, there is a chance that a port
> where there actually is a Derby network server listening is picked.
> As a start, I suggest that the bogus port is allocated to the last port in
> the port range configured for the run: baseport + MAX_PORTS_USED -1.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
