Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8253939: [TESTBUG] Increase coverage of the cgroups detection code #609

Conversation

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

@jerboaa jerboaa commented Oct 12, 2020

Test only change. With JDK-8253435 a test has been added on the hotspot side, but nothing for the Java Metrics code. Same for JDK-8252359.

When JDK-8217766 got fixed cgroup factories with the detection logic didn't exist so were harder to test. This patch adds tests for them too.

Thoughts?


Progress

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

Testing

Linux x64 Linux x86 Windows x64 macOS x64
Build ✔️ (5/5 passed) ✔️ (2/2 passed) ✔️ (2/2 passed) ✔️ (2/2 passed)
Test (tier1) ✔️ (9/9 passed) ✔️ (9/9 passed) ✔️ (9/9 passed) ✔️ (9/9 passed)

Issue

  • JDK-8253939: [TESTBUG] Increase coverage of the cgroups detection code

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/609/head:pull/609
$ git checkout pull/609

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 12, 2020

👋 Welcome back sgehwolf! 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.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label Oct 12, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Oct 12, 2020

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

  • core-libs
  • 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.

Loading

@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Oct 12, 2020

Webrevs

  • 03: Full (f762928)
  • 02: Full - Incremental (44362211e54d06ff0c7126f8b2c27a1b23f4d264)
  • 01: Full (a122958f0c9a947e759cb7170f24cb92160c8431)
  • 00: Full (8e2bcd1f8297d58a31701f03b028d7c95b088680)

Loading

@jerboaa jerboaa force-pushed the jdk-8253939-increase-java-test-coverage branch from 8e2bcd1 to a122958 Oct 23, 2020
@jerboaa jerboaa changed the title 8253939: [TESTBUG] Increase coverage of the cgroups detection code for Java 8253939: [TESTBUG] Increase coverage of the cgroups detection code Oct 23, 2020
@jerboaa jerboaa force-pushed the jdk-8253939-increase-java-test-coverage branch from a122958 to 4436221 Oct 23, 2020
@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jerboaa jerboaa commented Oct 27, 2020

@bobvandette Could you please take a look at this when you get a chance?

I'd like to get this in before I propose JDK-8254001 which would enable us to have better tests for all sorts of corner cases irrespective of the system it runs on.

Loading

Copy link
Contributor

@shipilev shipilev left a comment

This looks okay to me.

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Oct 28, 2020

@jerboaa 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:

8253939: [TESTBUG] Increase coverage of the cgroups detection code

Reviewed-by: shade, bobv

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 2 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • aaf4f69: 8255233: InterpreterRuntime::at_unwind should be a JRT_LEAF
  • bbf0a31: 8255397: x86: coalesce reference and int entry points into vtos bytecodes

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.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Oct 28, 2020
@jerboaa jerboaa force-pushed the jdk-8253939-increase-java-test-coverage branch from 4436221 to f762928 Oct 28, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@bobvandette bobvandette left a comment

Looks good.

Loading

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jerboaa jerboaa commented Oct 28, 2020

Thanks for the review!

Loading

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jerboaa jerboaa commented Oct 28, 2020

/integrate

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Oct 28, 2020
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Oct 28, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Oct 28, 2020

@jerboaa Since your change was applied there have been 9 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 01eb690: 8255554: Bad copyright header in AbstractFileSystemProvider.java
  • 1215b1a: 8255457: Shenandoah: cleanup ShenandoahMarkTask
  • af33e16: 8255441: Cleanup ciEnv/jvmciEnv::lookup_method-s
  • 8ad7f38: 8255014: Record Classes javax.lang.model changes, follow-up
  • 6bb7e45: 8245194: Unix domain socket channel implementation
  • 8bde2f4: 8255013: implement Record Classes as a standard feature in Java, follow-up
  • 0425889: 8255429: Remove C2-based profiling
  • aaf4f69: 8255233: InterpreterRuntime::at_unwind should be a JRT_LEAF
  • bbf0a31: 8255397: x86: coalesce reference and int entry points into vtos bytecodes

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 42fc158.

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

Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
3 participants