> On 6 Sep 2019, at 15:59, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote:
> I took another look at LdapTimeoutTest.java.

Many thanks!

> I was surprised to see RIGHT_MARGIN.  In jsr166 we succeed in having one 
> timeout that is long enough to "never happen".  I'm still advocating the 10 
> second value.
> I was surprised to see LEFT_MARGIN.  We just fixed Thread.sleep, so we have 
> no known problems with JDK methods returning early - you can trust timed get!
> You start measuring, by calling nanoTime, before you start the activity you 
> are measuring, so there should be no need for LEFT_MARGIN.

You raised many good points. Let me try to address them.

1. RIGHT_MARGIN is not used for checking that the activity has stuck infinitely 
(assertIncompletion). INFINITY_MILLIS is used for that. RIGHT_MARGIN is used 
for checking that the activity takes some predefined amount of time (roughly).

2. As for the numeric value of INFINITY_MILLIS, the reason I chose 20 seconds 
is twofold. Firstly, the code under test is subject to different timeouts. 
Every timeout value should be distinctive. Otherwise, how would I differentiate 
between them? For example, if I chose INFINITY_MILLIS to be 10 seconds how 
would I know if the code is stuck due to the read timeout of 10 seconds or the 
"infinite timeout"? Secondly, I must take into account slow machines. Really 
slow virtual machines. Hence, minimal timeouts (read/connect) have a magnitude 
of seconds and tens of seconds and the "rightmost", infinite timeout, is 20 

3. LEFT_MARGIN might no longer be needed due to the fact that no timed methods 
return early (actually there is a comment about it inside those two assert 

> We have some fresh thread-awaiting code here:
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/test/tck/JSR166TestCase.java?view=markup#l1443


> Instead of communicating startTime from the test thread back to the main 
> thread, I would do my loMillis checking in the test thread, and hiMillis 
> checking in the main thread, like e.g. compare with a fresh test method 
> testTimedOffer
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/test/tck/ArrayBlockingQueueTest.java?view=markup#l394

Understood. However, that might be a matter of taste. I prefer to have all the 
calculations and error handling in one place. Unless there's a good reason I 
wouldn't change it.

> Timeouts should be adjusted via Utils.adjustTimeout

That makes perfect sense. I never knew this method existed. Thanks!

> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:31 AM Pavel Rappo <pavel.ra...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Martin, thanks for having a look at it.
> I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the timeout measuring mechanics in 
> assertCompletion/assertIncompletion specifically, maybe to spot something 
> that is grossly inadequate.
> I tried to accommodate some usual suspects of timeout measurements failures. 
> I understand that since we're not working with real-time systems, my attempts 
> to build bullet-proof measurement mechanics are futile.
> -Pavel
> > On 30 Aug 2019, at 18:19, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Not really a review, but:
> > 
> > For many years we've been using 10 seconds (scaled by timeout factor) as a 
> > duration long enough that a timeout is a real failure.
> > Which is close to your own 20 seconds.  Of course, no value is surely safe.
> > 
> > Probably, parallel testing infrastructure for timeouts should be a test 
> > library method.  I do something similar in JSR166TestCase
> > 
> >     /**
> >      * Runs all the given actions in parallel, failing if any fail.
> >      * Useful for running multiple variants of tests that are
> >      * necessarily individually slow because they must block.
> >      */
> >     void testInParallel(Action ... actions) {
> >         ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
> >         try (PoolCleaner cleaner = cleaner(pool)) {
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> 
> > wrote:
> > On 30/08/2019 13:54, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> > > Updated,
> > > 
> > >      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8151678/webrev.01/
> > > 
> > 
> > Changes look good!
> > 
> > best regards,
> > 
> > -- daniel

Reply via email to