On 24/05/2020 3:06 am, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 5/23/20 6:03 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 23/05/2020 4:50 am, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Daniil,
There is one reference to "jvmwarningmsg" that occurs before it is
declared while all the rest all come after. It probably would make
sense to move its declaration up near the top of the file.
92 private static void matchListedProcesses(OutputAnalyzer
output) {
93 output.stdoutShouldMatchByLine(JCMD_LIST_REGEX)
94 .stderrShouldBeEmptyIgnoreVMWarnings();
95 }
We probably use this coding pattern all over the place, but I think
it just leads to less readable code. Any reason not to use:
92 private static void matchListedProcesses(OutputAnalyzer
output) {
93 output.stdoutShouldMatchByLine(JCMD_LIST_REGEX);
94 output.stderrShouldBeEmptyIgnoreVMWarnings();
95 }
I just don't see the point of the chaining, and don't understand why
all these OutputAnalyzer methods return the "this" object in the
first place. Maybe I'm missing something.
They return "this" precisely so that you can chain. The API was
designed for a style that allows:
output.shouldContain(x).shouldNotContain(y).shouldContain(z) ...
to avoid the repetition of "output".
Yeah, I get that, but I never did like this pattern. I just don't find
it as readable. For one, there's no conveyance of the method return
type, not just because of the chaining, but also because the method name
does not imply a return type. Chaining like
getMethod().getClass().getName() is fine, because there are implied
return types in the method names, and they clearly are being called for
the purpose of returning a type. But when the return type is there
solely for the purpose of chaining, it's not as obvious what is going on.
Your example is easier to read because the method names are short,
readily identified as related, and you made them all fit on one line
with shortened arguments.
Which is really an anti-pattern for this style of API :)
That's not the case with Daniil's code. I just
don't see the argument for saying that:
93 output.stdoutShouldMatchByLine(JCMD_LIST_REGEX)
94 .stderrShouldBeEmptyIgnoreVMWarnings();
Note the '.' should line up
Is somehow better than:
93 output.stdoutShouldMatchByLine(JCMD_LIST_REGEX);
94 output.stderrShouldBeEmptyIgnoreVMWarnings();
I don't have to look twice at the second version (or be familiar with
the APIs being used) to know what's going on.
All a matter of personal preference. :)
Cheers,
David
Chris
David
-----
I guess maybe there are cases where
the OutputAnalyzer object is not already in a local variable, adding
some value to the chaining, but that's not the case here, and I think
if it were the case it would be more readable just to stick the
OutputAnalyzer object in a local. There one other case of this:
154 private static void matchPerfCounters(OutputAnalyzer output) {
155 output.stdoutShouldMatchByLine(PERF_COUNTER_REGEX,null,
156 PERF_COUNTER_REGEX)
157 .stderrShouldBeEmptyIgnoreVMWarnings();
158 }
I think you can also add spaces after the commas, and probably make
the first stdoutShouldMatchByLine() one line.
thanks,
Chris
On 5/21/20 10:06 PM, Daniil Titov wrote:
Please review a webrev [1] that reverts the changes done in
jdk.test.lib.process.OutputAnalyzer in [3].
Change [3] modified OutputAnalyzer
stderrShouldBeEmptyIgnoreVMWarnings() methods to ignore also VM
version strings . The current webrev [1] reverts this change and
instead makes the tests that expects an empty stderr from launched
j-* tools to filter out '-showversion' from test options when
forwarding test VM option to j*-tools.
Testing: Mach5 tier1-tier5 tests passed successfully. Tier6-tier7
tests are in progress.
[1] Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8244993/webrev.01
[2] Jira issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244993
[3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242009
Thank you,
Daniil
