Hi Severin,
On 25/02/2019 15:31, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the review!
Latest webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8219585/02/webrev/
[...]
I'm not sure we need a larger timeout. It's 20 seconds on my machine
which seems more than enough. What makes you think we'd need to get
this increased and it would actually do anything for test stability?
Meanwhile I launched your proposed changes through our
test system. The good news is that there was no failure
(even when repeating the test 25 times), and without
changing the 5 timeout - so that may be OK.
Maybe my machine has something that slows it down.
Or Maybe I should have used a timeout factor of 4.
It does pass if I use -timeout:4 when invoking it with jtreg.
The not so good news is that it seems none of our test
machine has a non-loopback address configured for local host.
So even with your changes, the test always trivially pass.
I see the message says "Ignoring manual test" - but the
test is not manual?
[...]
Yes. I've tried to avoid those issues by allowing one non-loopback
address and 127.0.0.1 explicitly. Is that a reasonable assumption?
WRT using the loopback as an alternate configuration,
I wonder - should we add the loopback address before
checking size() < 1?
Not sure how stable the test will be in that case.
Also should we use InetAddress.getLoopbackAddress() instead
of using "127.0.0.1" directly?
My bet is on it passing trivially with:
"Ignoring manual test since no more than one IPs are configured for 'localhost'"
Well - yes - I believe that's what's happening.
best regards,
-- daniel
