RFR: 8022213 Intermittent test failures in java/net/URLClassLoader (Add jdk/testlibrary/FileUtils.java)
chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Fri Nov 8 14:47:23 UTC 2013
> An alternative might be to just throw the IOException with
> InterruptedException as the cause.
Perfect. Updated in the new webrev.
You are completely correct. I was only catering for the case where
"java.nio.file.FileSystemException: <your_file>: The process cannot
access the file because it is being used by another process."
Where the delete "succeeds" then we need to wait until the underlying
platform delete completes, i.e. the file no longer exists.
Updated webrev ( with only the diff from the previous ) :
On 08/11/2013 02:26, Dan Xu wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 11:04 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 07/11/2013 14:59, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> Given both Michael and Alan's comments. I've update the webrev:
>>> 1) more descriptive method names
>>> 2) deleteXXX methods return if interrupted, leaving the
>>> interrupt status set
>>> 3) Use Files.copy with REPLACE_EXISTING
>>> 4) Use SimpleFileVisitor, rather than FileVisitor
>> This looks better although interrupting the sleep means that the
>> deleteXXX will quietly terminate with the interrupt status set (which
>> could be awkward to diagnose if used with tests that are also using
>> Thread.interrupt). An alternative might be to just throw the
>> IOException with InterruptedException as the cause.
> Hi Chris,
> In the method, deleteFileWithRetry0(), it assumes that if any other
> process is accessing the same file, the delete operation,
> Files.delete(), will throw out IOException on Windows. But I don't see
> this assumption is always true when I investigated this issue on
> intermittent test failures.
> When Files.delete() method is called, it finally calls DeleteFile or
> RemoveDirectory functions based on whether the target is a file or
> directory. And these Windows APIs only mark the target for deletion on
> close and return immediately without waiting the operation to be
> completed. If another process is accessing the file in the meantime, the
> delete operation does not occur and the target file stays at
> delete-pending status until that open handle is closed. It basically
> implies that DeleteFile and RemoveDirectory is like an async operation.
> Therefore, we cannot assume that the file/directory is deleted after
> Files.delete() returns or File.delete() returns true.
> When checking those intermittently test failures, I find the test
> normally succeeds on the Files.delete() call. But due to the
> interference of Anti-virus or other Windows daemon services, the target
> file changes to delete-pending status. And the immediately following
> operation fails due the target file still exists, but our tests assume
> the target file is already gone. Because the delete-pending status of a
> file usually last for a very short time which depends on the
> interference source, such failures normally happens when we recursively
> delete a folder or delete-and-create a file with the same file name at a
> high frequency.
> It is basically a Windows API design or implementation issue. I have
> logged an enhancement, JDK-8024496, to solve it from Java library layer.
> Currently, I have two strategies in mind. One is to make the delete
> operation blocking, which means to make sure the file/directory is
> deleted before the return. The other is to make sure the delete-pending
> file does not lead to a failure of subsequent file operations. But they
> both has pros and cons.
More information about the core-libs-dev