On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:56:02 GMT, Shiv Shah <[email protected]> wrote:
> The failure handler keys each HTML section id by the command's name path, so
> when a command name occurs again after an intervening command - the same
> command repeated, or the same top-level tool reused, as in
> "jcmd.compiler.codecache jinfo jcmd.compiler.codelist" - a second section
> with the same id is written. Anchors and the data-toggle / data-show
> javascript resolve ids via document.getElementById, which returns the first
> match, so the later occurrence's output is unreachable. These are the two
> cases reported in the bug.
>
> Fix: the root section keeps a registry of issued ids; a repeated id gets the
> first free numeric suffix ("jcmd-2", ...). Displayed names are unchanged,
> adjacent commands with a shared prefix still share their sections, children
> of a suffixed section are unique automatically, and the registry also
> prevents collisions with a command literally named like a suffix. The only
> external id reconstruction, ToolKit.link(), is keyed by PID and unaffected.
>
> Ids can still repeat across appended fragments (each invocation appends a
> complete HTML document); that is pre-existing and tracked as JDK-8389541.
>
> Verified with a standalone driver using both sequences from the bug: six
> duplicated ids before the fix, none after, every run's output reachable. New
> HtmlSectionTest (plain JUnit, like the existing unit tests) covers both
> reported cases, per-occurrence output association, triple repetition, the
> "jcmd-2" name collision, and the unchanged adjacent / shared-prefix behavior
> - 6/6 pass.
>
>
> ---------
> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK
> Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
test/failure_handler/src/share/classes/jdk/test/failurehandler/HtmlSection.java
line 165:
> 163: * anchors, {@code data-toggle} and {@code data-show} references
> resolve to
> 164: * the right occurrence when a command name is repeated
> (JDK-8337680).
> 165: */
Hello Shiv, we don't usually include the JBS issue ids in the code comments. I
think leaving it out would be preferable. The rest of the text seems reasonable.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32157#discussion_r3735534555
