Small test case update. The test has failed a couple of times where it
appears
to be receiving input on a multicast socket which could not be generated
by the test case itself.
The test happens to use multicast groups that are assigned by IANA, and
globally routable.
So, it is conceivable that o
Michael,
On 21/06/2019 11:53, Michael McMahon wrote:
Small test case update. The test has failed a couple of times where it
appears
to be receiving input on a multicast socket which could not be generated
by the test case itself.
The test happens to use multicast groups that are assigned by IAN
Hi Chris,
On 21/06/2019, 12:32, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Michael,
On 21/06/2019 11:53, Michael McMahon wrote:
Small test case update. The test has failed a couple of times where
it appears
to be receiving input on a multicast socket which could not be
generated by the test case itself.
The test h
Michael,
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 17:27, Michael McMahon
> wrote:
>
> On 21/06/2019, 12:32, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> With this change, the negative scenarios ( that are expected to
>> timeout ), are susceptible to retrying when/if rogue packets are
>> received ( I guess this is less likel
Hi Michael,
Thanks for doing that. IT should make this test much more stable.
On 21/06/2019 17:27, Michael McMahon wrote:
There is a nio test, java/nio/channels/DatagramChannel/Promiscuous.java
that follows a similar pattern. Should it be updated in a similar way?
I notice that test uses a "r
