On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 14:37:00 GMT, Michael Felt <d...@openjdk.java.net> wrote:
>> Or is it possible to change the implementation on AIX so the test passes >> without change? > > If it defeats the purpose, then it needs to be skipped. > > * When I was trying to understand the test, it seemed to be that it _assumed_ > that "0.0.0.0" was 'converted' to 127.0.0.1. > * If there is an international standard (ISO, POSIX) that states 0.0.0.0 > needs to be treated as 127.0.0.1 - AIX clearly has a bug. Same for `::)` > mapping to `::1` - AIX doesn't do that IPv4 (now), and, afaik, never has for > IPv6. > * While testing I also saw that AIX reacts differently (error message iirc) > when passed NULL, whereas it behaves "as expected" when given a null-string > `""` > * FYI: Adoptium has put this test on the excluded list, but if a fix using > `""` rather than "0.0.0.0" and/or "::1" rather than "::0", the test should > perhaps state the exclusion as a comment in the code, and return immediately, > as it does for Windows. > Or is it possible to change the implementation on AIX so the test passes > without change? * Digging into the java guts to map "0.0.0.0" to "127.0.0.1" seems too far to me - as I believe interfaces are not suppossed to be "translating" as well. * If the behavior "0.0.0.0" becomes "127.0.0.1" is an official standard - a bug needs to be filed with IBM (which I cannot do) - but we need to also be aware that any fix to AIX is not likely to ever be applied on AIX 7.1 TL4 (maybe TL5) which are systems used to build distributions. * Again - being a noob (or fresh face; fresh meat) the test title is merely "PingThis" - where is "This" defined as "0.0.0.0" (if it had been named _PingHERE_ I could understand as the alias, iirc, for 0.0.0.0 is "Here". ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7013
