On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:50:59 GMT, Mark Sheppard <mshep...@openjdk.org> 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 is a rabbit hole, to provide some additional clarity on the > timeout mechanism and to avoid any perception that it has absolute realtime > timeout semantics, such that developers have precise view of how the > mechanism works > > https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/22/docs/api/jdk.naming.dns/module-summary.html 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): 7750 ----------System.err:(13/652)---------- java.lang.RuntimeException: Failed: timeout in 14229 ms, expected 7750ms at Timeout.handleException(Timeout.java:116) at TestBase.launch(TestBase.java:84) at TestBase.run(TestBase.java:50) at Timeout.main(Timeout.java:59) and I think it fails the new upper bound check most of the elapsed times that have been less than the expected have been within the 50 * 5 tolerance, but there have been a few outside the -250 mess lower bound ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20892#discussion_r1752480088
