On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:26:18 GMT, Aleksei Efimov <aefi...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Currently, it is hard to distinguish what part of the test responsible for >>> [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) testing, and >>> which part is for >>> [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579). I would prefer >>> to add a new test for the current fix instead: that could be done as >>> additional test mode, OR even better to add a completely new test. >> >> Hm, I think the test was overpurposed already. Creating another test file >> with duplicating code does not sound too good IMHO. Maybe it is acceptable >> without the renaming? >> >> Another question: Do we need a CSR/Release note as there is some behavioral >> change involved (although it should always have been like with this change)? > >> Hm, I think the test was overpurposed already. > > This test was added by JDK-8314063 fix, and I do not think it was change > after that. > >> Creating another test file with duplicating code does not sound too good >> IMHO. Maybe it is acceptable without the renaming? > > I think it is acceptable. Currently, it is hard to separate the test cases > for `a)` the original > [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) fix (the opened > socket is not closed properly when connection timeout occurs) and `b)` the > current fix [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579) > (unconnected sockets are not supported by SocketFactory). It would be great > to have this distinction in the modified test. I drafted a CSR. @AlekseiEfimov, would be nice if you could review it. As for the test, I had a closer look now and I find it hard to separate testing of [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) from [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579). Furthermore, most of the entries test things that hadn't been addressed by any of these two bugs at all. So, [JDK-8314063](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314063) is only tested in lines 72, 73, 76 and 77 The original problem of this issue [JDK-8325579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325579) is touched in line 71 and 73. That means, most of the other test invocations test some generic behavior which was never erroneous so far. I could, however, give each line its own test id and annotate the bugs accordingly. Do you think that makes sense? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17797#issuecomment-1959271452
