Thank you, Daniel
Regards,
Chris
> On 19 Nov 2018, at 5:40 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>
> Looks good to me Chris!
>
> best regards,
>
> -- daniel
>
> On 19/11/2018 03:03, Chris Yin wrote:
>> Hi, Daniel
>>> On 16 Nov 2018, at 7:13 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> This looks good to me, though I wonder if the check
>>> for reason.length() > 0 should be made in
>>>
>>> 51 public synchronized String failureReason() {
>>> 52 return reason.length() > 0 ? reason.toString() : null;
>>> 53 }
>>>
>>> instead of within passed() just to be on the safe side, in case
>>> some subclass is tricked into thinking that there is a failure
>>> if failureReason() starts returning "" instead of null?
>> Thanks for your suggestion, yes, that’s make sense since the original logic
>> “return reason” may also return null if no failure message, update webrev as
>> below.
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xyin/8129310/webrev.03/
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>>
>>> -- daniel
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2018 03:58, Chris Yin wrote:
Sorry, one more revision here since I found we could do a little more in
subclasses (use loopback address to avoid possible outside noise), and
this will introduce the test class which extends AsyncCloseTest into
webrev, hope that will be convenient for review, thanks
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xyin/8129310/webrev.02/
Regards,
Chris
> On 16 Nov 2018, at 10:39 AM, Chris Yin wrote:
>
> Hi, Daniel
>
> Thanks a lot for your reviewing and comments, revision webrev as below.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xyin/8129310/webrev.01/
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>> On 15 Nov 2018, at 6:06 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>
>> Hi chris,
>>
>> There's no reason to make `passed` and `closed` volatile since
>> they are private and only accessed from withing synchronized
>> methods.
>>
>> On the other hand, reason could now be final.
>>
>> Otherwise I guess it looks good. I haven't looked at the tests that
>> use AsyncClose so I trust that you have verified that your changes
>> work as you expect.
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>> On 15/11/2018 09:12, Chris Yin wrote:
>>> Please review below minor change for
>>> java/net/Socket/asyncClose/AsyncClose.java fails intermittently issue,
>>> thanks
>>> From previous failure log, seems lack of enough info to find out root
>>> cause, this change is to enhance a little to base test class
>>> AsyncCloseTest with guessing, even it may not completely address the
>>> issue, additional log info should still helpful for future debugging.
>>> 1. add volatile to 'boolean passed' and 'boolean closed' to avoid any
>>> visibility issue since they were write/read in different threads
>>> 2. failure reason info may be overwritten if failed() been called
>>> multiple times, change it to record all failure messages.
>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129310
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xyin/8129310/webrev.00/
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>
>
>>>
>
