On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 23:05:13 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I agree. Static analysis tools are quite limited in this regard, and are in >> now way a substitute for regression testing. >> >> So the question is how best to test fixes for memory leaks at runtime. Our >> current approach can be best characterized as "ad hoc", and is not all that >> robust (although works well enough in most cases and is still much better >> than doing no testing at all). I would welcome discussion of a more robust >> approach for testing, but it should be decoupled from this bug fix, and >> discussed as a separate JBS Enhancement request. > > The use of static analysis tools to catch certain types of problems is > orthogonal to a regression test to validate a bug fix of a specific memory > leak. > > @FlorianKirmaier as mentioned previously, please file a new JBS Enhancement > to propose adding a test utility for memory leak test. You can then start a > discussion on the openjfx-dev mailing list. > > As for fixing this memory leak, I recommend one of the following two > approaches: > 1. Modify the PR without relying on any new utilities (meaning you would > create yet-another adhoc test for memory leaks). > 2. Close this PR, wait for memory leak test utility to be integrated, and > then resubmit the PR for this leak using that utility. > > Obviously, approach 1 would get the fix in faster. You could then modify the > test to use the new utility as part of implementing the utility. A little bit late ... I have now removed unit-test and it's dependency. I will add a ticket about adding them again. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/71
