8343378: Exceptions in javax/management DeadLockTest.java do not cause test failure by kevinjwalls · Pull Request #21804 · openjdk/jdk

kevinjwalls · 2024-10-31T12:11:41Z

Test update: fail when it hits an Exception.

This test still references jmxmp and iiop, which are of course redundant, there are various tests that still do this.
I am working on http, so we may revisit these tests in future to change their list of protocols.

For now, I'd like to simply make this test fail if any of the protocols it tests have failures.
Fix a few typos while we are here.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8343378: Exceptions in javax/management DeadLockTest.java do not cause test failure (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Alex Menkov (@alexmenkov - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21804/head:pull/21804
$ git checkout pull/21804

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/21804
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21804/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 21804

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 21804

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21804.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

…e test failure

bridgekeeper · 2024-10-31T12:12:37Z

👋 Welcome back kevinw! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2024-10-31T12:13:11Z

@kevinjwalls This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8343378: Exceptions in javax/management DeadLockTest.java do not cause test failure

Reviewed-by: amenkov

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 15 new commits pushed to the master branch:

803612e: 8343121: RISC-V: More accurate max size for C2SafepointPollStub and C2EntryBarrierStub
b627a41: 8343345: Use -jvmArgsPrepend when running microbenchmarks in RunTests.gmk
2932144: 8343305: Remove Indify-dependent microbenchmarks
34655c6: 8342544: [macos] jpackage test helper should check for both "--app-image" and "--mac-sign" for signing predefined app image case
5a5d9c5: 8343085: [macos] jpackage verbose output on macOS contains numerous "Running /usr/bin/codesign" entries
d4eb2d9: 8319343: Improve CDS module graph support for --add-modules option
568b07a: 8325089: jpackage utility creates an "infinite", undeleteable directory tree
7c36fa7: 8343019: Primitive caches must use boxed instances from the archive
ae82cc1: 8342188: Update tests to use stronger key parameters and certificates
7ad3ef7: 8343057: JFR: Sorting in 'jfr view' can violate contract
... and 5 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/c40bb7621c0e49581dac587b6900b6d281572813...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

openjdk · 2024-10-31T12:13:43Z

@kevinjwalls The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

jmx
serviceability

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2024-10-31T12:17:41Z

Webrevs

00: Full (f6b45eb5)

plummercj · 2024-10-31T19:10:38Z

test/jdk/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/DeadLockTest.java

            try {
                test(protocols[i]);
            } catch (Exception e) {
+                fail = true; // any one protocol failure, fails the test


Suggested change

fail = true; // any one protocol failure, fails the test

fail = true; // any one protocol failure fails the test

I actually think it's more readable with the comma.
If there is (one protocol failure), then that (fails the test).
Without the comma, "failure fails" runs together, but the failure did not fail, it was a perfectly good failure. Pause for breath. What do we do now? Well, experiencing that kind of problem, fails the test.

Extended discussions on language style, from the test that brought you "listner" and "should no block". 8-)

The best way to get to the right answer here is simplify to the subject and verb: "failure fails". You don't put a comma between the subject and the verb, unless is something more much complex like "a failure, for which there can be more than one, fails the test". I think the reason you feel it reads better with the comma is because of the repetition of "fail". Would you still want a comma if the sentence was "any one protocol error fails the test"? I assume no, but the sentence is structurally identical.

Right, it is the repetition that makes me want the comma. There are other ways of phrasing this which would not need the comma. Even then, I still might introduce one to imply a pause, which I still think helps make it unambiguous on first read, without making it "...causes the test to fail" which is unnecessarily lengthy. It's also a comment buried in a test, not front page news.

My 8th grade grammar teacher took no pity on students with "comma-itis" as he called it. They got penalized harshly for gratuitous use of commas. He definitely got through to me though.

I think he should meet my parents, Jay-Z and Beyonce.

kevinjwalls · 2024-11-01T08:34:48Z

Thanks Alex!

kevinjwalls · 2024-11-01T08:34:54Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2024-11-01T08:35:31Z

Going to push as commit 4a70c83.
Since your change was applied there have been 19 commits pushed to the master branch:

8d4d589: 8343297: Vector unsigned min/max test are failing with -Xcomp
2a4d9d9: 8343379: [BACKOUT] 8343190 GHA: Try building JTReg several times
6f6cfe6: 8343380: C2: assert(iff->in(1)->is_OpaqueNotNull()) failed: must be OpaqueNotNull
cbda758: 8343122: RISC-V: C2: Small improvement for real runtime callouts
803612e: 8343121: RISC-V: More accurate max size for C2SafepointPollStub and C2EntryBarrierStub
b627a41: 8343345: Use -jvmArgsPrepend when running microbenchmarks in RunTests.gmk
2932144: 8343305: Remove Indify-dependent microbenchmarks
34655c6: 8342544: [macos] jpackage test helper should check for both "--app-image" and "--mac-sign" for signing predefined app image case
5a5d9c5: 8343085: [macos] jpackage verbose output on macOS contains numerous "Running /usr/bin/codesign" entries
d4eb2d9: 8319343: Improve CDS module graph support for --add-modules option
... and 9 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/c40bb7621c0e49581dac587b6900b6d281572813...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2024-11-01T08:35:38Z

@kevinjwalls Pushed as commit 4a70c83.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

8343378: Exceptions in javax/management DeadLockTest.java do not caus…

f6b45eb

…e test failure

kevinjwalls marked this pull request as ready for review October 31, 2024 12:13

openjdk bot added serviceability serviceability-dev@openjdk.org jmx jmx-dev@openjdk.org rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Oct 31, 2024

plummercj reviewed Oct 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

alexmenkov approved these changes Nov 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 1, 2024

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 1, 2024

openjdk bot closed this Nov 1, 2024

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 1, 2024

	fail = true; // any one protocol failure, fails the test
	fail = true; // any one protocol failure fails the test

Conversation

kevinjwalls commented Oct 31, 2024 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 31, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2024

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Oct 31, 2024

Webrevs

Uh oh!

plummercj Oct 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kevinjwalls Oct 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plummercj Oct 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kevinjwalls Nov 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plummercj Nov 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kevinjwalls Nov 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kevinjwalls commented Nov 1, 2024

Uh oh!

kevinjwalls commented Nov 1, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

kevinjwalls commented Oct 31, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading