On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 07:43:01 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which improves the > debuggability of the `java/rmi/server/RemoteServer/AddrInUse.java` test? > > As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8213699, this test fails > intermittently. The test code launches a Thread which does a > `LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port)`. The test then expects that call to > return within (an arbitrary) 10 seconds and if it doesn't, then it considers > that the test has ended up reproducing a bug which would cause a hang in the > implementation of `LocateRegistry.createRegistry(...)` method. > > The 10 seconds is a reasonable timeout, I think even for busy hosts. But we > have seen this test fail because the launched thread which does the > `LocateRegistry.createRegistry(...)` has either not started or completed > within that period. > > The changes in this PR updates that test code to remove the arbitrary 10 > second timeout and instead just wait for the launched thread to complete. If > the test doesn't complete within the configured jtreg test timeout (which by > default is 2 minutes), then the jtreg and its failure handler infrastructure > will gather the necessary thread dump and other states to help debug why the > test timed out. This should help understand such intermittent failures in > future (if it continues to fail). > > I have triggered a tier testing of this change in our CI and will run a test > repeat too. Hello Stuart, > I'd suggest renaming the failure field and the local variable into which its > value is loaded after the thread is joined. The difficulty with "failure" is > that it's ambiguous whether it means the export has failed or that the test > has failed. (It means the former.) The field is expected to contain an > ExportException, so something that suggests that would be preferable. That's a good point. I've updated the PR to rename it to `registryExportFailure`. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28595#issuecomment-3605218229
