On 4 May 2016, at 23:59, Michael McMahon <michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> wrote:
> I've just updated the webrev at > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8155928/webrev.3 > > to retry the tests in the unlikely event of a BindException Thanks Michael. This looks ok. -Chris. > - Michael > > On 04/05/16 19:12, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> Michael, >> >> getFreePort follows a failed pattern. There is no guarantee that the port >> will >> be “free” when you actually require it. It will only reduce the likelihood of >> failure. Is there any way that the actual tests needing the port can >> create it themselves ( i understand that this will be more work, and possibly >> require some refactoring ). >> >> -Chris. >> >> >> On 4 May 2016, at 17:06, Michael McMahon <michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. That permission is not actually required for the >>> test. But, it did make me look closer at it, and I realised that permission >>> checking of the request URI port number was not being tested. So, that led >>> me >>> down a couple of rat holes which is why I haven't replied till now. >>> >>> So, I have updated the webrev at: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8155928/webrev.2/ >>> >>> to remove the redundant permission check and also the following changes >>> >>> 1) There was a bug in the permission check where the host part of the URI >>> was checked, but should have been the entire authority field. >>> (Utils.java) >>> >>> 2) Add explicit test for a request URI and a real (randomly chosen) port >>> number >>> (test 1 in Security.java) >>> >>> 3) Fixed another strange issue in the Security test which causes failures >>> if the jtreg >>> work directory is not empty prior to running the test. (change in >>> Security.moveFile) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Michael >>> >>> On 03/05/16 15:47, Roger Riggs wrote: >>>> Hi Michael, >>>> >>>> test/java/net/httpclient/security/15.policy: line 15: >>>> >>>> - Should this policy file include the substitution for the ${port.number}? >>>> >>>> Otherwise, it still looks like it has a fixed port #. >>>> >>>> Roger >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/3/2016 7:44 AM, Michael McMahon wrote: >>>>> Some tests with hardcoded port numbers were included in the initial http >>>>> tests. >>>>> >>>>> The fix uses a driver to allocate a free port and pass it into the >>>>> existing >>>>> security test through a system property. >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8155928/webrev.1/index.html >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Michael >
