On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:30:10 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:30:10 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:30:10 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmiport' `
> (we set an argument [-1] but probably this is not what
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:56:54 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:39:14 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> SADebugDTest is only one test, so seems OK to have it fail as soon as we
> realise we need a port, and it has a value of -1.
>
> I would do it in this change as they are so connected, but really whichever
> works best for you. (I don't see
> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmiport' `
> (we set an argument [-1] but probably this is not what
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:04:10 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:19:18 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> In the "if (useRmiPort) {" block, we should be failing the test if rmiPort is
> -1, saying something like "cannot find an rmiPort, findUnreservedFreePort
> returns -1"
>
> A similar abort if setting registryPort gets -1 might also be good?
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:04:10 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:04:10 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmiport' `
> (we set an argument [-1] but probably this is not what
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 12:10:11 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
>> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
>> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
>> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmip
> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmiport' `
> (we set an argument [-1] but probably this is not what
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 14:31:14 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
> circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
> This leads to a somewhat misleading message
> `[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmiport'
The test serviceability/sa/sadebugd/SADebugDTest.java can pass under some
circumstances a negative rmiport (--rmiport -1) to SALauncher.java.
This leads to a somewhat misleading message
`[debugd] Argument is expected for 'rmiport' `
(we set an argument [-1] but probably this is not what is really
16 matches
Mail list logo
