On 11/19/13 1:41 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/11/2013 20:14, Martin Buchholz wrote:
In jsr166 tests we have mostly switched to 10 second timeouts to mean forever.
But in ProcessBuilder tests we are starting up new java processes with their
well-known startup problems, so using a much larger
Hi folks,
Looking for a quick review for a test failure we're encountering.
Seemingly no bar is too high for our test infrastructure. Hopefully this
will put this particular failure to rest.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8022206/webrev.01/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8022206
The change looks ok to me. If for no reason other than to eliminate the
timeout if this tests fails again in the future.
-Chris.
On 11/19/2013 02:28 PM, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi folks,
Looking for a quick review for a test failure we're encountering.
Seemingly no bar is too high for our test
On 19/11/2013 14:28, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi folks,
Looking for a quick review for a test failure we're encountering.
Seemingly no bar is too high for our test infrastructure. Hopefully
this will put this particular failure to rest.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8022206/webrev.01/
Hi Rob,
May I suggest changing System.out.println in Basic.fail into
System.err.println? Or possibly printing the message on both
out and err?
This would ensure that the error message appears on System err before
the stack trace - which might be better for diagnosis.
-- daniel
On 11/19/13
Changeset: 63b696dafc8a
Author:robm
Date: 2013-11-19 15:36 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/63b696dafc8a
8022206: Intermittent test failures in java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java
Reviewed-by: chegar, alanb
! test/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java
On 19/11/2013 20:14, Martin Buchholz wrote:
In jsr166 tests we have mostly switched to 10 second timeouts to mean
forever.
But in ProcessBuilder tests we are starting up new java processes with
their well-known startup problems, so using a much larger value of
forever seems reasonable. I vote
