The print statement below seems redundant with the assertion failure message.
You could improve the assertion message instead if need be.
Adding thousand separator underscores to 200000000L would help a little.
I like my little helper
static long millisElapsedSince(long startNanoTime) {
return NANOSECONDS.toMillis(System.nanoTime() - startNanoTime);
}
+ System.out.printf(" waitFor process: delta: %d%n",(end - start) );
+
if ((end - start) > 200000000L * (AIX.is() ? 2 : 1))
fail("Test failed: waitFor took too long (" + (end -
start) + "ns)");
200 ms timeout for subprocesses to finish is just too damn low. In
j.u.c. tests we switched to 10 seconds for most "long" timeouts
(LONG_DELAY_MS) and are happy with the disappearance of rare flaky
results.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM, roger riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Please review test changes to ProcessBuilder Basic.java to add some
> debugging information.
> The test has been failing intermittently. The wait times have been extended
> to see
> if the systems are just slow. The failure criteria have not changed.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-basic-debug-8043477/
>
> issue:
> 8043477: java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java failed with:
> java.lang.AssertionError: Some tests failed
>
> Thanks, Roger
>
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8043477
>
