Request for review: 7191777: test/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java failing intermittently due to additions for 4244896
david.holmes at oracle.com
Thu Aug 16 20:53:28 UTC 2012
On 17/08/2012 2:33 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Sounds good:
I think we would want the non-timed version of waitFor. Otherwise the
default timeout will never kick in (unless the timing aspect of waitFor
is broken). Hmmm - can't test two things at once. See what Alan says. :)
> On 16/08/12 08:19, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 16/08/2012 03:18, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>> On 16/08/2012 9:09 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>> One of the tests from 4244896 failed once during nightly testing. It
>>>> isn't known how much of a delay will be necessary in order for it to
>>>> pass. In any case the tolerance can't really be loosened much more
>>>> without making the test meaningless so I've decided to remove it.
>>> Can we not leave the waitFor in place but simply not check how long
>>> we waited? That way if it really takes "too long" we hit the default
>>> test timeout.
>> That seems a good idea as it also exercises waitFor at around the time
>> that the process is terminating.
More information about the core-libs-dev