I'm OK with both this interesting approach and fixed port. :) btw, it
doesn't solve port confliction thoroughly in theory. Other applications
may
open the "free" port during close and open.
Agree.
So i'll ask Alexei to integrate my patch and if it does not work for some
reasons - i'll prepare another patch with fixed port number provided by a
property.
Regards,
Mikhail
On 12/26/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/26/06, Mikhail Markov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No. But at least we need to test the behaviour of ServerSocket(fixed
> port)
> > constructor once. For example, if I implemented ServerSocket(int port)
> as
> > follows:
> > public ServerSocket(int port) {
> > port = 0;
> > // no matter what the port is, the constructor always constructs a
> server
> > socket with free port
> > }
> > It's obviously wrong, but can any test detect this error?
> I could suggest something like this:
> ServerSocket ss = ServerSocket(0);
> int fixedPort = ss.getLocalPort();
> ss.close();
> ServerSocket ssUnderTest = new ServerSocket(fixedPort);
> // test if opened ServerSocket listens on port "fixedPort"
> // even if SS is set the port internally to 0 - this code will find the
> bug
> :-)
>
> Yes, yes - i could guess your argument "What if first SS not actually
> close
> the connection but reuse it?" :-).
> Well - let's consider this as one of 2 axiom:
> 1) ServerSocket(0) really choose non-busy port (BTW, this is not tested
in
> ServerSocketTest at all, but i do understand that this is hard to test)
> 2) close() method really close an open SS (this assumption is tested by
> ServerSocketTest.test_close() method).
> Also, for example, ServerSocketTest.test_ConstructorII() calls
> getNextPort() 3 times, so we need either to reserve 3 ports for testing
or
> reuse 1 port 3 times. Thoughts?
I'm OK with both this interesting approach and fixed port. :) btw, it
doesn't solve port confliction thoroughly in theory. Other applications
may
open the "free" port during close and open.
Regards,
> Mikhail
>
>
> On 12/26/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/25/06, Mikhail Markov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for your warm words!
> > >
> > > > But without fixed port meaning that we never test the behaviour of
> > > > ServerSocket(1000).
> > > > That's why I suggest to introduce fixed port for ServerSocket
> > > constructor
> > > > test.
> > > > My suggestion is not to discard your patch, but using your patch +
> > fixed
> > > > port to replace current getNextPort machenism. Does it make sense?
> > > Thanks!
> > > Why my approach does not work in this case?
> > > For example:
> > > void test_ServerSocketCosntructor() {
> > > ...
> > > int port = getNextPort(); // got free port number
> > > ServerSocket ss = new ServerSocket(port);
> > >
> > > // tests ServerSocket opened on fixed port here
> > > // checks if ServerSocket listens on this port etc.
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > Or testing ServerSocket each time on the same port number is
critical?
> >
> >
> > No. But at least we need to test the behaviour of ServerSocket(fixed
> port)
> > constructor once. For example, if I implemented ServerSocket(int port)
> as
> > follows:
> > public ServerSocket(int port) {
> > port = 0;
> > // no matter what the port is, the constructor always constructs a
> > server
> > socket with free port
> > }
> > It's obviously wrong, but can any test detect this error?
> >
> > Regards,
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > On 12/25/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/25/06, Mikhail Markov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Mikhail, I think I have agreed with all your words in my
> > > previous
> > > > > > letter. We've agreed to use port 0 for most network tests.
Fixed
> > > port
> > > > > number
> > > > > > is required sometimes, i.e., how do you write test for
> > > > ServerSocket(int
> > > > > > port)?
> > > > > Sorry, Andrew - I did not participated in original discussion
and
> > > Alexei
> > > > > in
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2338 said that he
> > > > > understands the final decision as we will use reserved ports
> numbers
> > -
> > > > so
> > > > > I've decided to re-check once again.
> > > > >
> > > > > > We'd better test ServerSocket constructor with both legal
> > value(not
> > > > > > only 0, but also some positive numbers), and illegal value.
> That's
> > > > where
> > > > > > fixed port number is used. Make sense? Thanks!
> > > > > Why not use ServerSocket(0) to just *obtain* some positive
> non-busy
> > > port
> > > > > number (and close it after port number obtaining) and after that
> > test
> > > > > ServerSocket constructor with this obtained port number? In this
> > case
> > > > > we'll
> > > > > not require any reserved ports at all.
> > > > > I've implemented this approach and attached the patch - could
you
> > > please
> > > > > take a look at it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mikhail, the patch is good! I agree that it's a good fix as
> always.
> > > :-)
> > > > But without fixed port meaning that we never test the behaviour of
> > > > ServerSocket(1000).
> > > > That's why I suggest to introduce fixed port for ServerSocket
> > > constructor
> > > > test.
> > > > My suggestion is not to discard your patch, but using your patch +
> > fixed
> > > > port to replace current getNextPort machenism. Does it make sense?
> > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/24/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/24/06, Mikhail Markov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still don't like using fixed port numbers. Moreover, some
> > tests
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > require several ports for testing.
> > > > > > > I did not see any objections against using 0 as a port
number,
> > > > except
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > some functionality should be tested with fixed port numbers.
> > > > > > > How about the following scheme for *finding* non-busy port:
> > > > > > > 1) invoke ServerSocket(0) constructor
> > > > > > > 2) get the port where ServerSocket opened the socket
> > > > > > > 3) close ServerSocket
> > > > > > > 4) use the stored port from 2-nd step for further testing
(it
> > > could
> > > > be
> > > > > > > Socket/ServerSocket/nio tests etc.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Mikhail, I think I have agreed with all your words in my
> > > previous
> > > > > > letter. We've agreed to use port 0 for most network tests.
Fixed
> > > port
> > > > > > number
> > > > > > is required sometimes, i.e., how do you write test for
> > > > ServerSocket(int
> > > > > > port)? We'd better test ServerSocket constructor with both
legal
> > > > > value(not
> > > > > > only 0, but also some positive numbers), and illegal value.
> That's
> > > > where
> > > > > > fixed port number is used. Make sense? Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew Zhang
> >
> >
>
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang
