Re: RFR 8005068: HttpCookie does not correctly handle negative maxAge values

Reminder. It's a little change and won't take much time to look into. Thanks, Svetlana On 22.08.2016 20:33, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Kindly reminder On 19.08.2016 16:30, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hello, please review this fix. Javadoc for HttpCookie setMaxAge states that " A neg

Re: RFR 8005068: HttpCookie does not correctly handle negative maxAge values

Kindly reminder On 19.08.2016 16:30, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hello, please review this fix. Javadoc for HttpCookie setMaxAge states that " A negative value means that cookie is not stored persistently" and "max age is unspecified", but hasExpired only checks for "

RFR 8005068: HttpCookie does not correctly handle negative maxAge values

Hello, please review this fix. Javadoc for HttpCookie setMaxAge states that " A negative value means that cookie is not stored persistently" and "max age is unspecified", but hasExpired only checks for "-1" as possible negative value. Also changed max age for parsed cookies with "expires"

RFR 8146602: jdk/test/sun/misc/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java test fails with NullPointerException

Hello, please review this test update. Test do not consider that exception could happen while variable "server" is not initialized yet. As a result log shows NPE instead of the real exception which is irrecoverably lost. I added check for "null" to prevent this situation. Also did some

RFR (XXS): 8145732: Duplicate entry in http.nonProxyHosts will ignore subsequent entries - test update

Hello all, please review next micro test update. It turned out that code change for JDK-8035158 also fixed problem described in JDK-8145732 . But I think It's worth it to update regression

Re: RFR 8162876: [TEST_BUG] sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently

Chris, could you please take a look? Pavel said he is ok with this version. Thank you, Svetlana On 04.08.2016 15:31, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Kindly reminder. On 02.08.2016 20:25, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Pavel, Chris, thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's

Re: RFR 8162876: [TEST_BUG] sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently

Kindly reminder. On 02.08.2016 20:25, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Pavel, Chris, thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's comments except the one mentioned by Chris below. I saw tests with a really long bug list in @bug so I think it's a good practice to avoid testbug

Re: RFR 8162876: [TEST_BUG] sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently

Pavel, Chris, thank you for you replays. I believe I addressed all Pavel's comments except the one mentioned by Chris below. I saw tests with a really long bug list in @bug so I think it's a good practice to avoid testbug numbers. Hope it is not critical. I also switched back from Writer to

RFR 8162876: [TEST_BUG] sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently

Hello, please review this test clean-up. Test sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently with stale threads remaining. I've done some refactoring to make sure that all request data is read, resources are closed and I also hope test is more readable now. Webrev:

Re: RFR 8022580: sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient.nameList(String path) handle "null" incorrectly

is. best regards, -- daniel On 07/07/16 19:06, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Artem, please see updated review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~snikandrova/8022580/webrev.03/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esnikandrova/8022580/webrev.03/> Thanks, Svetlana On 07.07.2016 19:41, Artem Smotrakov wro

Re: RFR 8022580: sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient.nameList(String path) handle "null" incorrectly

mments below. The test looks fine to me. Just a couple of minor comments. 1. You don't really need fields in lines 77-79. 2. try-catch block in line 86 is not really necessary as well. It would be better to update bug subject to something more meaningful. Artem On 07/07/2016 08:31 AM, Svetlan

Re: RFR 8022580: sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient.nameList(String path) handle "null" incorrectly

looks fine to me. Just a couple of minor comments. 1. You don't really need fields in lines 77-79. 2. try-catch block in line 86 is not really necessary as well. It would be better to update bug subject to something more meaningful. Artem On 07/07/2016 08:31 AM, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote:

Re: RFR 8022580: sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient.nameList(null)

} (please note that it doesn't work for JDK 8) It would reduce the code and simplify the test (you would avoid some "try" blocks). I am not sure that you need to close "out" if you close the socket. 4. Typo: handelClient -> handleClient Artem On 07/06/201

Re: RFR 8022580: sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient.nameList(null)

ecessary to use daemons? 8. Please use braces for "if" statements, see Java Coding Conventions. FtpClient.java: please update copyright year. Artem On 07/05/2016 07:40 AM, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hello, please review this fix for bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8022580 Webrev: http:/

RFR 8022580: sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient.nameList(null)

Hello, please review this fix for bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8022580 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~msolovie/8022580/webrev.00/ Description: There is no handling for null path parameter in the method sun.net.ftp.impl.FtpClient#nameList(), while javadoc says that

Re: RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

Thank you, Chris! On 25.05.2016 16:08, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 25 May 2016, at 14:04, Svetlana Nikandrova <svetlana.nikandr...@oracle.com> wrote: Hi Chris, thank you for your comments. Please see updated review. (I left braces in one line "if" blocks, hope it wasn't strong

Re: RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

tandalone 1 test manual run and with JPRT. Thank you, Svetlana On 24.05.2016 21:59, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 24 May 2016, at 17:21, Svetlana Nikandrova <svetlana.nikandr...@oracle.com> wrote: I hate being annoying, but may be you can find another minute to review updated diff? This

Re: RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

I hate being annoying, but may be you can find another minute to review updated diff? Thank you, Svetlana On 23.05.2016 19:36, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, Chris, thank you for your comments. I've decided to do as Chris suggested and updated existing test test/jdk/net/Sockets/Test.java

Re: RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

net/%7Esnikandrova/8136933/webrev.03/> Thank you, Svetlana On 20.05.2016 18:19, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 20 May 2016, at 14:10, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: On 20/05/2016 14:05, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, another test related to this option is on the same level (

Re: RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

confusing? As for overlapping coverage: existing test silently exits if option is not in supported list while this one is focused on platform support check. Thank you, Svetlana On 20.05.2016 15:07, Alan Bateman wrote: On 20/05/2016 11:16, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hi Artem, thank you for your

Re: RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

I am also wondering if it should expect no exception in getOption() if setOption() succeeded. Artem On 05/19/2016 09:13 AM, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hello, please review additional test for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option. Test checks that SO_FLOW_SLA option is supported on Solaris 11.2+ and n

RFR 8136933: Additional tests for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option in JDK 9

Hello, please review additional test for Solaris SO_FLOW_SLA socket option. Test checks that SO_FLOW_SLA option is supported on Solaris 11.2+ and not supported on other platforms. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~snikandrova/8136933/webrev.00/

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Thank you, Alan! If nobody has any objections I'll ask to push this fix. Thank you, Svetlana On 15.01.2016 16:21, Alan Bateman wrote: On 13/01/2016 15:48, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, thank you for you replay. Here is my updated webrev with formatting fixes. http://cr.openjdk.java.net

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Alan, thank you for you replay. Here is my updated webrev with formatting fixes. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.03/ About getSocket() check - you are right, it is because there are Socket options unsupported by

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Little remainder. On 19.12.2015 1:32, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, Michael, thank you for your feedback. As you suggested I moved checking code down to the implementation. Please see updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.02/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

16:51, Alan Bateman wrote: On 08/12/2015 13:44, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hi Alan, thank you for your replay. Please let me explain a little. For example ServerSocket and Socket have different supported options set, but the same SocketImpl under the hood. Yes, SocketImpl's setO

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Little reminder. On 03.12.2015 16:06, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hello, please review a simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143554 See webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.00/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekshefov/8143

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

"Unsupported socket type" error can occure in case of supported socket type. Not sure that IllegalAccessException can be thrown in main() method. Artem On 12/03/2015 04:06 PM, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Hello, please review a simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/brows

RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Hello, please review a simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143554 See webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.00/ Fix added explicit check for option support to getOption and setOption