On Wed, 28 May 2025 11:13:12 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Wed, 21 May 2025 15:37:34 GMT, serhiysachkov wrote:
> Update open/test/jdk/TEST.groups manual test groups definitions with missing
> manual test
Marked as reviewed by msheppar (Reviewer).
-
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25360#pullrequestreview-2870691165
On Mon, 26 May 2025 19:22:39 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/util/Exceptions.java line 253:
>>
>>> 251: return;
>>> 252: enhancedSocketExceptionText =
>>> SecurityProperties.includedInExceptions("hostInfo");
>>> 253: enhancedNonSo
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:31:39 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Tue, 20 May 2025 15:25:52 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a simple test update which increases a timeout from 300s to 400 to
> account for slow mac os test machines.
> A repeat 50 test of :jdk_lang passes. I will run this a few more times before
> pushing, if the change is acc
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:31:39 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:31:39 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:31:39 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:31:39 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:31:39 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Enhanced exception messages are designed to hide sensitive information such
>> as hostnames, IP
>> addresses from exception message strings, unless the enhanced mode for the
>> specific category
>> has been explicitly enab
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 17:22:36 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> > Brian created https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/CODETOOLS-7903996 to have the
> > JTREG reporting improved
>
> Yes, and this comment was added to that issue since then
>
> "Please note the work having been done in
> https://bugs.open
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 20:46:42 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Use the `@requires` tag instead of obtaining the operating system name from
> the `os.name` property and then exiting if the test is not run on that
> operating system.
test/jdk/java/io/File/MacPathTest.java
test/jdk/java/io/File/MaxP
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 20:46:42 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Use the `@requires` tag instead of obtaining the operating system name from
> the `os.name` property and then exiting if the test is not run on that
> operating system.
a general comment on this approach of running tests selectively o
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 15:55:00 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> @AlanBateman @mahendrachhipa @bwhuang-us @serhiysachkov @mcimadamore
>> @JornVernee
>>
>> adding as manual tests
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
> commits since the last revision:
>
> - reve
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 16:23:17 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> @AlanBateman @mahendrachhipa @bwhuang-us @serhiysachkov @mcimadamore
> @JornVernee
>
> adding as manual tests
test/jdk/TEST.groups line 625:
> 623: javax/xml/jaxp/datatype/8033980/GregorianCalAndDurSerDataUtil.java \
> 624: java/fo
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:00:28 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations
>> in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano)
>> clock. The existing `Timeout` test ha
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:00:28 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations
>> in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano)
>> clock. The existing `Timeout` test ha
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:00:28 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations
>> in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano)
>> clock. The existing `Timeout` test ha
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 13:25:54 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
> > I think that if there is a PortUnreachable thrown, during DnsClient.query
> > processing from the doUdpQuery, then the timeout may expire early ... if
> > I've interpreted the outer loop processing correctly
>
> The `DnsClient.query` m
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 17:55:13 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations
>> in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano)
>> clock. The existing `Timeout` test h
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:38:15 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> I think 2 times is good, remove all potential noise ;-)
>>
>> the following failures is nearly twice the expected
>>
>> --System.out:(3/73)--
>> Skip local DNS Server creation
>> Elapsed (ms): 14229
>> Expected (ms): 77
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:50:59 GMT, Mark Sheppard wrote:
>> I don't think we want to go down the rabbit hole of documenting too much.
>> Agreed that using a simple factor 2 would make the code simpler, but do we
>> want to go that high?
>
> I don't think it
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:44:35 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> src/jdk.naming.dns/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/dns/DnsClient.java line 442:
>>
>>> 440: // use 1L below to ensure conversion to long and avoid
>>> potential
>>> 441: // integer overflow (timeout is an int).
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:59:44 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> test/jdk/com/sun/jndi/dns/ConfigTests/Timeout.java line 112:
>>
>>> 110: // Check that elapsed time is as long as expected, and
>>> 111: // not more than 67% greater. Given the min DNS timeout
>>> 112: /
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:29:23 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations
>> in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano)
>> clock. The existing `Timeout` test ha
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:29:23 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations
>> in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano)
>> clock. The existing `Timeout` test ha
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:30:08 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> The reason why 2GB is needed in this test is explained in
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8285386.
ok thanks ... i'll re-read
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18290#issuecomment-1999485205
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:04:51 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which proposes to address
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8328066?
>>
>> The test launches a JVM with 2G heap (`-Xmx2G`) and as noted in that issue,
>> the failure was observed on
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:04:51 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which proposes to address
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8328066?
>>
>> The test launches a JVM with 2G heap (`-Xmx2G`) and as noted in that issue,
>> the failure was observed on
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:15:39 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which proposes to address
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8328066?
>>
>> The test launches a JVM with 2G heap (`-Xmx2G`) and as noted in that issue,
>> the failure was observed on
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:22:07 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> OK - sounds good. Meanwhile I had a look at the custom RMI Socket Factories
>> used by the JMX Agent, and these are actually RMIServerSocketFactories, so
>> having a timeout for connect there probably makes no sense.
>
> Thanks, yes so JMX
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 14:31:40 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> @bwhuang-us @mahendrachhipa
Marked as reviewed by msheppar (Reviewer).
-
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16796#pullrequestreview-1747718538
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:57:32 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> RMI Connections (in general) should use a timeout on the Socket connect call
> by default.
>
> JMX connections use RMI and some connection failures never terminate. The
> hang described in 8316649 is hard to reproduce manually: the descri
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:32:53 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> @mahendrachhipa @bwhuang-us
Marked as reviewed by msheppar (Reviewer).
-
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16782#pullrequestreview-1745344250
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 05:01:35 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> I remain concerned that this means that a whole swag of tests will never be
> run with virtual threads, which reduces our virtual thread test coverage.
> Hard to quantify. Do you have any stats on how many tests this will affect
> and whic
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 02:33:29 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
>> Test thread factory is a mode similar to VM flags and should not be used in
>> ProcessTools.createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder(). Only
>> createTestJavaProcessBuilder() should use it like jtreg VM options.
>>
>> Adding the test thread f
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 22:25:46 GMT, Bill Huang wrote:
> Updated jdk_core_manual test groups.
Marked as reviewed by msheppar (Reviewer).
-
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16531#pullrequestreview-1719065392
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 00:06:35 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
> Test thread factory is a mode similar to VM flags and should not be used in
> ProcessTools.createLimitedTestJavaProcessBuilder(). Only
> createTestJavaProcessBuilder() should use it like jtreg VM options.
>
> Adding the test thread factor
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 15:57:15 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> The test fails on windows because unmatched comparison of `Path.toString()`
>> vs `URL.getPath().toString()` after JDK-8317965. A simple fix is to
>> evaluate the JAR file path in the same way as `LoadLibraryDeadlock` does.
>
> Mandy Chun
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:05:06 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
>> This PR refactors the SSLSocketParametersTest by removing
>> redundant/unnecessary classes and cleans up the logic around expected
>> exceptions.
>
> Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional com
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:20:49 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> test/jdk/javax/rmi/ssl/SSLSocketParametersTest.java line 77:
>>
>>> 75:
>>> 76: public void testRmiCommunication(RMIServerSocketFactory
>>> serverFactory) throws Exception {
>>> 77: Hello stub = (Hello)UnicastRemoteObject
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:02:28 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> retained a reference to the RMI server and improved naming
>
> test/jdk/javax/rmi/ssl/SSLSocketParametersTest.java l
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:18:53 GMT, Agnibho Hom Chowdhury
wrote:
>> Please review this PR as a fix of
>> [JDK-8249832](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8249832). I have added the
>> bug with after @ignore annotation.
>
> Agnibho Hom Chowdhury has updated the pull request incrementally with on
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:53:58 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
>> This PR refactors the SSLSocketParametersTest by removing
>> redundant/unnecessary classes and cleans up the logic around expected
>> exceptions.
>
> Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
> merge
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:53:58 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
>> This PR refactors the SSLSocketParametersTest by removing
>> redundant/unnecessary classes and cleans up the logic around expected
>> exceptions.
>
> Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
> merge
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:23:55 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of
>> createTestJvm.
>>
>> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed
>> -i -e
>> "s/createJavaProcessBuilder(/createJavaProcessBu
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 05:45:27 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> > So you could create a single createJavaProcessBuilder with add an
> > additional parameter boolean addTestOpts e.g.
> > createJavaProcessBuilder(List command, boolean addTestOpts) { ... }
>
> @msheppar that is actually where we started,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:23:55 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Rename createJavaProcessBuilder so that it is not used by mistake instead of
>> createTestJvm.
>>
>> I have used the following sed script: `find -name "*.java" | xargs -n 1 sed
>> -i -e
>> "s/createJavaProcessBuilder(/createJavaProcessBu
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 21:38:41 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> Several tests from test/jdk/sun/tools/jstatd are intermittent.
>>
>> Port clashes when run at the same time on the same machine have been a
>> problem.
>> The RMI error "no such object in table" can mean a reference on the RMI
>> server h
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 20:48:01 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 14:57:47 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> Several tests from test/jdk/sun/tools/jstatd are intermittent.
>>
>> Port clashes when run at the same time on the same machine have been a
>> problem.
>> The RMI error "no such object in table" can mean a reference on the RMI
>> server h
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 14:57:47 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> Several tests from test/jdk/sun/tools/jstatd are intermittent.
>>
>> Port clashes when run at the same time on the same machine have been a
>> problem.
>> The RMI error "no such object in table" can mean a reference on the RMI
>> server h
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:21:17 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:21:17 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:21:17 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:11:11 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:11:11 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:11:11 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:11:11 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:10:02 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> test/jdk/com/sun/jndi/ldap/LdapSSLHandshakeFailureTest.java line 173:
>>
>>> 171: public void run() {
>>> 172: try (Socket socket = serverSocket.accept()) {
>>> 173: Thread.sleep(1);
>>
>> What's th
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 17:24:57 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> Weibing Xiao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> updated the code according to the review
>
> src/java.naming/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/ldap/Connection.java line 372
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:10:04 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> Weibing Xiao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> update the test code
>
> src/java.naming/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/ldap/Connection.java line 369:
>
>> 367:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 19:12:54 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>>
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is
>> either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client
>> tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol.
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:27:05 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::leanup does not close the underlying socket if
>> the is an IOException generation when the output stream was flushing the
>> buffer.
>>
>> Please refer to the bug https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313657
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:09:58 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::leanup does not close the underlying socket if
>> the is an IOException generation when the output stream was flushing the
>> buffer.
>>
>> Please refer to the bug https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313657.
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:09:58 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
>> com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::leanup does not close the underlying socket if
>> the is an IOException generation when the output stream was flushing the
>> buffer.
>>
>> Please refer to the bug https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313657.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 06:42:54 GMT, Vyom Tewari wrote:
>> Weibing Xiao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> update error message
>
> src/java.naming/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/ldap/Connection.java line 702:
>
>> 700:
>> 701:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 17:32:43 GMT, Weibing Xiao wrote:
> com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::leanup does not close the underlying socket if
> the is an IOException generation when the output stream was flushing the
> buffer.
>
> Please refer to the bug https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313657.
why
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:06:30 GMT, Bill Huang wrote:
>> The purpose of this task is to add the difference between -manual jdk_core
>> and jdk_core_manual to the jdk_core_manual test goal. Furthermore, in order
>> to streamline the manual test execution process, a new test group called
>> jdk_co
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 23:29:25 GMT, Bill Huang wrote:
>> The purpose of this task is to add the difference between -manual jdk_core
>> and jdk_core_manual to the jdk_core_manual test goal. Furthermore, in order
>> to streamline the manual test execution process, a new test group called
>> jdk_co
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 17:00:47 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> yes, this mitigates the issue within the test, and alls good.
>> BUT it still leave an open question as to why the behaviour of the test is
>> different for the -Xcomp mode and the interpretative mode?
>> I think it would be reasonable to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:53:18 GMT, SUN Guoyun wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/rmi/server/UnicastRemoteObject/serialFilter/FilterUROTest.java
>> line 74:
>>
>>> 72: public void useExportObject(String name, Object obj, int
>>> expectedFilterCount) throws RemoteException {
>>> 73: try {
>>> 74
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 08:48:17 GMT, SUN Guoyun wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When -Xcomp be used, this testcase will use more codecaches, causing the GC
>> to be triggered early, then causing this test failed on LoongArch64
>> architecture.
>>
>> This PR fix the issue, Please help review it.
>>
>> Thanks
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 08:48:17 GMT, SUN Guoyun wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When -Xcomp be used, this testcase will use more codecaches, causing the GC
>> to be triggered early, then causing this test failed on LoongArch64
>> architecture.
>>
>> This PR fix the issue, Please help review it.
>>
>> Thanks
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 08:27:57 GMT, SUN Guoyun wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When -Xcomp be used, this testcase will use more codecaches, causing the GC
>> to be triggered early, then causing this test failed on LoongArch64
>> architecture.
>>
>> This PR fix the issue, Please help review it.
>>
>> Thanks
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 08:27:57 GMT, SUN Guoyun wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When -Xcomp be used, this testcase will use more codecaches, causing the GC
>> to be triggered early, then causing this test failed on LoongArch64
>> architecture.
>>
>> This PR fix the issue, Please help review it.
>>
>> Thanks
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 09:38:13 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Please review this patch that reduces the socket timeout used in
>> HandshakeTimeout test to its minimum value of 1 millisecond.
>>
>> This change makes the test complete 10 seconds faster; before this change it
>> took 5 seconds for t
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 11:06:05 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> Please review this patch that reduces the socket timeout used in
> HandshakeTimeout test to its minimum value of 1 millisecond.
>
> This change makes the test complete 10 seconds faster; before this change it
> took 5 seconds for the h
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:01:19 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this test only change which proposes to fix the
>> recent intermittent failures in `RmiBootstrapTest` reported in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8030616?
>>
>> The test has been intermittently failing
On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 11:52:28 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test only change which proposes to fix the
> recent intermittent failures in `RmiBootstrapTest` reported in
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8030616?
>
> The test has been intermittently failing with
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:16:12 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> `netstat -av` in Mac OS X failure handler is frequently running into the 20
> second timeout, leaving us with no socket information. This PR proposes
> running `netstat -anv` along with the existing `netstat -av`, so that we have
> at
81 matches
Mail list logo
