Thanks Daniel and Christoph for review.
-Harsha
On Tuesday 05 December 2017 08:11 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
+1
-- daniel
On 05/12/2017 12:04, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday 05 December 2017 03:42 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Harsha,
Looks good.
Thanks for the review.
nit:
366 if(random.nextBoolean()) {
367 String[] tokens = line.split("\\s+");
368 if ((tokens.length == 4 || tokens.length ==
3)) {
inverting the two if () (testing for the applicability of the line
first) would probably give a better chance that an existing
password is replaced, unless most lines are applicable.
All the lines will be applicable. The password file will be hashed
before the above lines are executed. An Assert statement at line 353
makes sure of that. Hence no point inverting the two if().
best regards,
-- daniel
Regards
Harsha
n 04/12/2017 18:27, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi All,
Please review and provide comments for fix for,
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192909
having webrev at,
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8192909/webrev.00/
Fix details: The test was failing intermittently because of
duplicate entries for role in input password file. The duplicate
entries get over-written by JMX agent, but the client was testing
with stale entries for duplicated role. Also, the test now uses a
single random number generator from test package
(Utils.getRandomInstance) instead of two.
Regards
Harsha
