[SERVER-36402] ScopedThread's join() method should throw if an exception was thrown in the thread Created: 01/Aug/18 Updated: 01/Aug/18 Resolved: 01/Aug/18 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Shell |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) | Assignee: | DO NOT USE - Backlog - Platform Team |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Description |
|
Almost all tests using ScopedThreads call join() on the thread, but few if any call hasFailed(). Without checking the result of hasFailed() on the thread, it's possible that an uncaught exception was thrown from the thread but the test can still pass. This may be hiding existing test failures. If we don't do this, we should at least audit all users of ScopedThread and make sure they're handing errors from within the thread appropriately. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
|
There are several things on that list that I would personally consider lower priority than this. For now I'm going to close this ticket as a dupe of |
| Comment by Max Hirschhorn [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
spencer, I thought |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
|
Nope, it's exactly the same, I just forgot that existed. If |
| Comment by Max Hirschhorn [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
|
spencer, is this any different from |