RFR: JDK-8208471: nsk/jdb/unwatch/unwatch002/unwatch002.java fails with "Prompt is not received during 300200 milliseconds"

[Chris Plummer]

I don't think Alex actually gave a thumbs up for this change yet. He 
just offered a suggestion for an alternate way to fix.

Chris

On 9/21/18 5:18 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
> Patch attached.
>
>
> On 9/20/18, 8:17 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Ok, so you're just suggesting that findPrompt() should require that 
>> the prompt be at the end of the line. In fact probably on a line by 
>> itself. Keep in mind that we also have issues with async printing 
>> that tends to result in the prompt appearing in the middle of some 
>> lines. We have most of these situations understood and under control 
>> now, but I'm guessing they still turn up in some places, and would 
>> cause findPrompt() to fail.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 9/20/18 4:06 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
>>> To be detected the output line should ends with "Boolean[1] "
>>>
>>> So "Field (nsk.jdb.unwatch.unwatch002.unwatch002a.FS1) is null, will 
>>> be instance of java.lang.Boolean[1] (id=706):" does not match.
>>> It seems to me that other bugs Gary is working have similar cases.
>>>
>>> --alex
>>>
>>> On 09/20/2018 15:27, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>> The regex you give would still detect Boolean[1] as a prompt, which 
>>>> we don't want.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On 9/20/18 3:22 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
>>>>> May be it would be better to fix Jdb.receiveReplyFor to properly 
>>>>> handle all replies like
>>>>> Field (nsk.jdb.unwatch.unwatch002.unwatch002a.FS1) is null, will 
>>>>> be instance of java.lang.Boolean[1] (id=706):
>>>>>
>>>>> jdk/com/sun/jdi tests use the following regexp to detect jdb prompt:
>>>>> "[a-zA-Z0-9_-][a-zA-Z0-9_-]*\[[1-9][0-9]*\] [ >]*$"
>>>>> (see test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/lib/jdb/Jdb.java or
>>>>> test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/ShellScaffold.sh)
>>>>> AFAIR nsk/../Jdb does not use regexp, but I believe it can be 
>>>>> updated to work the same way.
>>>>>
>>>>> --alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/20/2018 14:50, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>>>> This one is a little different than exclude001 in that we don't 
>>>>>> control the name of the thread. We know (at least at the moment) 
>>>>>> that it is called "main", but that could always change. In 
>>>>>> general I'm fine with this fix, but if you have others like it, 
>>>>>> I'd suggest putting the "main" thread name in single place, not 
>>>>>> in each test that cares about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/20/18 10:54 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
>>>>>>> The corrupted output has been identified due to the "Boolean[1]"
>>>>>>> being misrecognized as a compound prompt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proposed fix waits for the correct prompt before
>>>>>>> advancing to the next command.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8208471/webrev/
>>>>>>>   Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208471
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Testing is in progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>