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

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR : JDK-8164609 : javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/DeadListenerTest.java fails
From:       David Holmes <david.holmes () oracle ! com>
Date:       2016-08-30 6:15:22
Message-ID: e50d473c-58bf-9b5e-5a03-1cdc5ab31b6b () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Looks good!

Thanks,
David

On 30/08/2016 3:58 PM, Amit Sapre wrote:
> Hello,
> I made changes as David suggested. Here is the new webrev link
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/sponsorships/8164609/webrev.01/
> 
> Thanks,
> Amit
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Holmes
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:57 AM
> To: Amit Sapre; serviceability-dev
> Subject: Re: RFR : JDK-8164609 : \
> javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/DeadListenerTest.java fails with \
> AssertionError 
> Hi Amit,
> 
> On 29/08/2016 3:55 PM, Amit Sapre wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Please review a small test only change.
> > 
> > Bug id : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164609
> > 
> > Webrev :
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sballal/sponsorship/8164609/webrev.00/
> 
> !  * Copyright (c) 2010, 2015, 2016, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights \
> reserved. 
> Copyright format is wrong - we only use first and last year, so just update the \
> existing 2015 to be 2016. 
> !  * @run main/othervm/timeout=120 -XX:+UsePerfData DeadListenerTest
> 
> I think that is already the default timeout. Only set an explicit timeout if you \
> need it to be longer - which I don't think you do here. 
> Getting rid of the internal timeout mechanism is good.
> 
> > PS : Based on triaging , it looked like a timing issue in test case,
> > so the proposed changes are done only to increase the test timeout. If
> > issue is still observed, will re-open the bug.
> 
> Once a bug has had a changeset associated with it, it is considered Fixed and must \
> not be reopened. Any subsequent test failures will require a new bug to be filed. 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Amit
> > 


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