RFR 8080557: JShell tool: Contains REPL class prefix in the documentation for the user defined method or class

[ShinyaYoshida]

Hi Jan and Andrei,
Could you review my patch for the issue which is reported by Andrei?

webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8080557/webrev.00/
bugs:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080557

I've changed the test case of the documentation for the user defined
constructor, it looks a test case bug:
- assertEval1("class A<T> { A(T a) {} A(T a) {}}");
- assertDocumentation("new A(|", "A(T a)", "A(int arg0)");
+ assertEval1("class A<T> { A(T a) {} A(int a) {}}");
+ assertDocumentation("new A(|", "A(T arg0)", "A(int arg0)");
Andrei, this is ok?

And now, we can replace using Java API with using the user defined method
or constructor in some tests.
I add the test cases using user defined methods or constructors into some
tests.
Should I remove the test case which is using Java API?

For example:
assertDocumentation("Object.wait(|", "");
assertDocumentation("\"\".indexOfSupplementary(|", "");
+ assertEval1("class A {void method() {}}");
+ assertDocumentation("A.method(|", "");
+ assertEval1("class A {private void method() {}}");
+ assertDocumentation("new A().method(|", "");

or

- assertDocumentation("Object.wait(|", "");
- assertDocumentation("\"\".indexOfSupplementary(|", "");
+ assertEval1("class A {void method() {}}");
+ assertDocumentation("A.method(|", "");
+ assertEval1("class A {private void method() {}}");
+ assertDocumentation("new A().method(|", "");

Which is good?

Regards,
shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)