Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0EA200B8D for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:30:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 88A52160ACA; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id F2062160AC2 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:30:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 96489 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2016 10:30:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@brooklyn.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@brooklyn.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@brooklyn.apache.org Received: (qmail 96478 invoked by uid 99); 23 Sep 2016 10:30:32 -0000 Received: from git1-us-west.apache.org (HELO git1-us-west.apache.org) (140.211.11.23) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:30:32 +0000 Received: by git1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at git1-us-west.apache.org, from userid 33) id BC879DFE65; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:30:32 +0000 (UTC) From: aledsage To: dev@brooklyn.apache.org Reply-To: dev@brooklyn.apache.org References: In-Reply-To: Subject: [GitHub] brooklyn-server issue #344: JmxService tests marked as integration Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <20160923103032.BC879DFE65@git1-us-west.apache.org> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:30:32 +0000 (UTC) archived-at: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:30:34 -0000 Github user aledsage commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/344 Re sneaking the change into #340 - next time can you do it in a separate PR, even if you merge that PR yourself immediately! --- Maybe it is just the problem of socket `time_wait` status. But I'd have thought it would be more deterministic, and would fail on other environments (rather than just the shared jenkins) if that is the case. I guess the alternative (that the port is snapped up by another process in the few millisecond window) is pretty unlikely, particularly with unusual port numbers like this! I wonder if it could be more subtle: the socket might already be in a time_wait state; we call `Networking.isPortAvailable` using `setReuseAddress` so it works; we then call the `JmxService` without `setReuseAddress` and it fails because the original socket is still there in `time_wait` state. Or is that nonsense: does opening a socket with `setReuseAddress` cause the previous time_wait socket to close immediately? --- I don't particularly like us waiting up to 3 minutes in our test (as per your observation in #329 that we want tests to be fast). I'd prefer (medium-term) if we could retry with different port numbers instead. But happy to see if your fix works! --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---