JDK-8273745: VerifyLocale.java occasionally times out

[jonathan-gibbons]

Please review a simple test-only update, to reduce the number of locales tested, and thereby reduce the number of javadoc-invocations

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

• JDK-8273745: VerifyLocale.java occasionally times out

Reviewers

• Pavel Rappo (@pavelrappo - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5814/head:pull/5814
$ git checkout pull/5814

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/5814
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5814/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 5814

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 5814

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5814.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back jjg! 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]

@jonathan-gibbons The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• javadoc

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

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (e7da5f5b)

[pavelrappo]

Looks better than it was.

The test indeed seems to use too many resources for the value it provides. Here's what the test reports on my machine. Before the change:

Skipped 1 locales
Tested 1015 locales

After the change:

Skipped 623 locales
Tested 393 locales

For me, the change cuts the execution time from 20 seconds to 13. While it's good, it is still too long to reasonably test that the locale passed as an argument to javax.tools.DocumentationTool#getTask reaches the doclet. BTW, is there a test that exercises passing the locale through the CLI?

[openjdk]

@jonathan-gibbons 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:

8273745: VerifyLocale.java occasionally times out

Reviewed-by: prappo

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 6 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• a5080ef: 8272564: Incorrect attribution of method invocations of Object methods on interfaces
• a914ee7: 8274632: Possible pointer overflow in PretouchTask chunk claiming
• 8f7a37c: 8274434: move os::get_default_process_handle and os::dll_lookup to os_posix for POSIX platforms
• 3953e07: 8271459: C2: Missing NegativeArraySizeException when creating StringBuilder with negative capacity
• 53d7e95: 8274635: Use String.equals instead of String.compareTo in jdk.accessibility
• e43f540: 8274651: Possible race in FontDesignMetrics.KeyReference.dispose

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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.

[jonathan-gibbons]

I agree that the test is overweight for the benefit, but I couldn't think of a better way to reduce the number of invocations of javadoc and still have a chance of catching any problem values.

I was alerted to this test because I did see it occasionally timing out (on my local system), and so the intent was to reduce the execution time to avoid that kind of spurious test failure. I'm open to applying further improvements if we can come up with any good suggestions. Meanwhile, I propose to integrate this fix as is.

[jonathan-gibbons]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 92b64a2.
Since your change was applied there have been 11 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 90a5ae8: 8274282: Clarify special wait assert
• bb0bab5: 8274286: Skip null for make_referent_alive in referenceProcessor
• 7ad74d8: 8274299: Make Method/Constructor/Field accessors @stable
• 1459180: 8274079: Cleanup unnecessary calls to Throwable.initCause() in java.base module
• 8609ea5: 8273342: Null pointer dereference in classFileParser.cpp:2817
• a5080ef: 8272564: Incorrect attribution of method invocations of Object methods on interfaces
• a914ee7: 8274632: Possible pointer overflow in PretouchTask chunk claiming
• 8f7a37c: 8274434: move os::get_default_process_handle and os::dll_lookup to os_posix for POSIX platforms
• 3953e07: 8271459: C2: Missing NegativeArraySizeException when creating StringBuilder with negative capacity
• 53d7e95: 8274635: Use String.equals instead of String.compareTo in jdk.accessibility
• ... and 1 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/2e542e33b81a53652956bb5e9636e7f4af5540f7...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@jonathan-gibbons Pushed as commit 92b64a2.

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

[pavelrappo]

I agree that the test is overweight for the benefit, but I couldn't think of a better way to reduce the number of invocations of javadoc and still have a chance of catching any problem values.

What would such problem values be? Have we seen any? I thought that this test simply verifies that if we put a locale on the one end (options), we will receive that same locale on the other end (doclet). Is there more to this test?

I was alerted to this test because I did see it occasionally timing out (on my local system), and so the intent was to reduce the execution time to avoid that kind of spurious test failure. I'm open to applying further improvements if we can come up with any good suggestions. Meanwhile, I propose to integrate this fix as is.

The fact that this test occasionally timed out on your machine surprises me. I mean, it used to take 20 seconds for me. Did it occasionally take more than 300 seconds for you? (AFAIK the default jtreg timeout is 5 minutes.)