jbliznak commented on issue #3176: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/issues/3176#issuecomment-3889571189
@Tibor17 do I understand correctly that you found an issue in a workflow that is not covered by tests and therefor wasn't caught in PRs? After thorough look, is the problem the constructor of new checker can produce exception while the old one can't? https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/surefire-booter/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/booter/ProcessHandleChecker.java#L125-L134 vs https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/surefire-booter/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/booter/PpidChecker.java#L101-L103 ```java ProcessHandleChecker(@Nonnull String pid) { this.pid = Long.parseLong(pid); try { Optional<?> optionalObject = (Optional<?>) PROCESS_HANDLE_OF.invoke(null, this.pid); processHandle = optionalObject.orElse(null); initialStartInstant = getInitialStartInstant(); } catch (Exception e) { throw new IllegalStateException("Failed to initialize ProcessHandleChecker for PID " + pid, e); } } ``` vs ```java PpidChecker(@Nonnull String ppid) { this.ppid = ppid; } ``` and this would be the place where it matters? https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/surefire-booter/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/booter/ForkedBooter.java#L218 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
