[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16756545#comment-16756545
]
Enrico Olivelli commented on SUREFIRE-1222:
-------------------------------------------
[~tibor17] so you will be back at this patch soon !
I will be happy to work then at the socket based implementation once we have
merged the Abstraction over the communication between forked jvm and master
process
> ForkClient attempts to consume unrelated lines
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SUREFIRE-1222
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1222
> Project: Maven Surefire
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Maven Surefire Plugin, process forking
> Affects Versions: 2.17
> Environment: Oracle JDK7 (build 1.7.0_79-b15)
> Linux 3.13 x86_64 with default locale cs_CZ
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Assignee: Tibor Digana
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0-M4
>
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> This month the [Weld
> SE|https://github.com/weld/core/tree/2.3/environments/se/tests] test suite
> suddenly started to fail on a Linux machine with Oracle JDK7 and the default
> locale {{cs_CZ}}:
> {code}
> Caused by: java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of
> range: -1
> at java.lang.String.substring(String.java:1911)
> at
> org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.booterclient.output.ForkClient.consumeLine(ForkClient.java:128)
> at
> org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.booterclient.output.ThreadedStreamConsumer$Pumper.run(ThreadedStreamConsumer.java:67)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> {code}
> A {{java.util.logging.Logger}} is used in the forked process. The exception
> occurs when the following log message is written to the standard output:
> {code}
> I 29, 2016 2:01:43 ODP. org.jboss.arquillian.container.se.server.Main main
> {code}
> We have found out that the timestamp *I 29, 2016 2:01:43* (i.e. 2016-01-29
> 14:01:43) is incorrectly parsed as {{ForkingRunListener.BOOTERCODE_SYSPROPS}}
> operation.
> I think the protocol should be robust enough to avoid similar collisions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
