Got it. Thanks Mark.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
> In message <aanlktimsn8peujvw3jgmhyakdahuslwptsfcmhdt1...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Charles Lee writes:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Mark Hindess <
> mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I was looking at failing tests on FreeBSD and I spotted the following
> > > test in DatagramPacketTest.java:
> > >
> > > public void test_getPort() throws IOException {
> > > DatagramPacket dp = new DatagramPacket("Hello".getBytes(), 5,
> > > InetAddress.getLocalHost(), 1000);
> > > assertEquals("Incorrect port returned", 1000, dp.getPort());
> > >
> > > final InetAddress localhost = InetAddress.getLocalHost();
> > > DatagramSocket socket = new DatagramSocket(0, localhost);
> > > final int port = socket.getLocalPort();
> > >
> > > final Object lock = new Object();
> > >
> > > Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
> > > public void run() {
> > > DatagramSocket socket = null;
> > > try {
> > > socket = new DatagramSocket(0, localhost);
> > > synchronized (lock) {
> > > started = true;
> > > lock.notifyAll();
> > > }
> > > socket.setSoTimeout(3000);
> > > DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(new
> byte[256],
> > > 256);
> > > socket.receive(packet);
> > > socket.send(packet);
> > > socket.close();
> > > } catch (IOException e) {
> > > System.out.println("thread exception: " + e);
> > > if (socket != null)
> > > socket.close();
> > > }
> > > }
> > > });
> > > thread.start();
> > >
> > > socket.setSoTimeout(3000);
> > > DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(new byte[] { 1, 2, 3,
> 4, 5,
> > > 6 }, 6, localhost, port);
> > > synchronized (lock) {
> > > while (!started) {
> > > try {
> > > lock.wait();
> > > } catch (InterruptedException e) {
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > > socket.send(packet);
> > > socket.receive(packet);
> > > socket.close();
> > > assertTrue("datagram received wrong port: " + packet.getPort(),
> packet
> > > .getPort() == port);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Notice that main threads socket is being used to send to itself - not
> to
> > > the other socket which is left waiting until timeout for a packet from
> > > itself that it hasn't sent yet! I think this can be more simply
> written
> > > as:
> > >
> > > public void test_getPort() throws IOException {
> > > DatagramPacket dp = new DatagramPacket("Hello".getBytes(), 5,
> > > InetAddress.getLocalHost(), 1000);
> > > assertEquals("Incorrect port returned", 1000, dp.getPort());
> > >
> > > final InetAddress localhost = InetAddress.getLocalHost();
> > > DatagramSocket socket = new DatagramSocket(0, localhost);
> > > final int port = socket.getLocalPort();
> > >
> > > socket.setSoTimeout(3000);
> > > DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(new byte[] { 1, 2, 3,
> 4,
> > > 5,
> > > 6 }, 6, localhost, port);
> > > socket.send(packet);
> > > socket.receive(packet);
> > > socket.close();
> > > assertTrue("datagram received wrong port: " + packet.getPort(),
> packet
> > > .getPort() == port);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Does that make sense or am I missing something?
> >
> > It seems the original one transfer packet in two directions, but the
> > new version only transfer the packet in one way.
>
> The original does a send then receive in the testing thread. But the
> other thread does only a receive which times out with an exception but
> the exception is ignored so it is not testing anything.
>
> I assume the intention was for the two threads to send each other a
> packet but the original test does not do that.
>
> The new version only has the original testing thread. I don't think
> anything is lost. (Except perhaps that the test would hang if the
> receive in the second thread did not timeout but there are more
> obvious/sane ways to test this.)
>
> > > Sadly they both fail on FreeBSD.
>
> I know why the fail on FreeBSD now.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>
--
Yours sincerely,
Charles Lee
