[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-nio-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR: 8276994: java/nio/channels/Channels/TransferTo.java leaves multi-GB files in /tmp
From:       Markus KARG <duke () openjdk ! java ! net>
Date:       2021-12-02 16:57:59
Message-ID: z1I-yehNmUAajMvdnOdBp_04A2rj4WKncIgAI7_5EWY=.f4c60c6e-fc86-4c72-87f4-8d1dfca17594 () github ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 07:39:09 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb@openjdk.org> wrote:

> > I don't think we need this. Instead, it would be better if the tests uses the \
> > test work directory so the files are easily found for post failure analysis. This \
> > isn't practical for the tests that create  >2GB files so I think leave the code \
> > that Lance put in there to delete them so they aren't archived when the work \
> > directory is zipped up.
> 
> > @AlanBateman @LanceAndersen You are confusing me. Lance requests style changes, \
> > while Alan does not want the changes. These answers are incompatible. _Either_ I \
> > change the code according Lance's wishes, _or_ we simple drop this PR. Please \
> > find a concensus.
> 
> I think it's better to pause a moment and understand the environment when jtreg \
> runs tests. The important thing is that the current directory (as in user.dir) will \
> be a scratch directory that jtreg has created. My comments are just pointing out \
> that the bookkeeping proposed in this PR to delete files is not needed that you can \
> just change the test to create the temp file in the current directory. We can leave \
> the try-finally that Lance added in the >2GB tests because they are too big to keep \
> for any post failure analysis.

@AlanBateman @LanceAndersen I kindly request your review on this PR.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6379


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]