On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 06:01:57 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. > > Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > rename failure to registryExportFailure a minor point on the @bug additions. Typically, this is reserved for a bug id which is an actual fix to JDK source code. There is some ambiguity on this policy, but generally that has been the practice. Maybe it is a topic which should be discussed at a jdk-dev level, and a clearer policy assertion established? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28595#issuecomment-3607307562
