On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:02:40 GMT, Kevin Walls <kev...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Test fails occasionally due to a port clash.
>> Presumably the port that was returned by Utils.getFreePort(), is no longer 
>> free.
>> The test creates a ProcessBuilder with the parameters for JMX, including 
>> port number, and uses that to create a new Process.
>> It should retry with a new port if we fail due to a port in use, for some 
>> limited number of attempts.
>> 
>> main already has some retry logic, but not working:
>> it checks for an InvocationTargetException to contain a BindException, but 
>> it simply gets a BindException, thrown by TestAppRun.start().
>> TestAppRun.start() runs the new process and scans for errors, but on failure 
>> its predicate has only seen the first line of a failure, so a BindException 
>> is never recognised and thrown.
>> Also main does not limit the retries, and handling the port retry in main() 
>> is duplicated, for each run of the test method.
>> 
>> So...
>> 
>> Make the error-scanning predicate in TestAppRun recognise a "port in use" 
>> message and throw a BindExeption.  This is a notification to the caller that 
>> it failed, it's not the actual BindException as that was thrown in a 
>> different process.
>> Make the testDefaultAgent method (the main part of the test) handle retrying 
>> with a new port, a limited number of times.
>
> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   break to terminate retry loop when succesful

Marked as reviewed by msheppar (Reviewer).

A good spot by yourself ... as the focus was on the BindException correction 
and the pass condition is an Exception being thrown, it was easy to miss the 
break for a failure condition ... a similar issue existed in the current test 
albeit only if an InvocationTargetException with a nested BindException was 
thrown and the retry resulted in the 
InvalidClassException or UnmarcshalledException !!

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7589

Reply via email to