Request for review: 8005618 - TEST_BUG: java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java failing intermittently
david.holmes at oracle.com
Tue Jan 15 12:41:30 UTC 2013
On 15/01/2013 9:55 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 15/01/2013 01:31, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 15/01/2013 7:12 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>> Simple enough fix but to be honest I'm not sure any value will *always*
>>> work for the dead process waitFor(). Our testing infrastructure seems to
>>> glide past whatever we consider to be acceptable tolerances.
>> Using the latch seems reasonable but the existing wait/sleep times do
>> not. Why waitFor(10000) if the main thread is going to interrupt you
>> after a sleep(1000) ???
> It's testing that Process.waitFor will be interrupted by
> Thread.interrupt so it requires a thread to block in waitFor. Using
> sleeps is always going to be problematic as the load on test machines is
> unpredictable but I think Rob's proposed change does make this test a
> bit more robust.
Ah I see. I'd missed that aspect of this.
Thanks for clarifying.
More information about the core-libs-dev