Fix: Stabilize `GenericServiceTest.testGenericComplexCompute4FullServiceMetadata` under NonDex

[Anshul-creator]

What is the purpose of the change?

This PR stabilizes the test GenericServiceTest.testGenericComplexCompute4FullServiceMetadata, which was exhibiting order-dependent flakiness under randomized execution orders (NonDex).

Root Cause

The test compared the returned result string against ComplexObject.toString() using strict assertEquals(...). However, ComplexObject.toString() includes a Map field (maps={...}), and the iteration order of HashMap entries is not guaranteed. As a result, the serialized string could differ only in map-entry ordering (e.g., {v1_k1=..., v1_k2=...} vs {v1_k2=..., v1_k1=...}), causing intermittent assertion failures.

Changes Made

• Preserved the existing strict assertEquals(...) checks for the overall result format.
• Added order-insensitive assertions that validate:
  • the result starts with the expected "haha###" / "haha2###" prefix, and
  • the result contains both expected map entries (v1_k1=v1_v1 and v1_k2=v1_v2), regardless of ordering.
• Kept the rest of the test logic unchanged.

Verification

You can try running the following snippet of code from the dubbo repo root, on both pre-fix and post-fix code

./mvnw -q -pl dubbo-compatible \
  edu.illinois:nondex-maven-plugin:2.2.1:nondex \
  -DnondexRuns=100 \
  -Dtest=org.apache.dubbo.generic.GenericServiceTest#testGenericComplexCompute4FullServiceMetadata

The test should fail intermittently on the pre-fix version, but pass consistently across all seeds on the post-fix version. NonDex run logs will be available under the dubbo-compatible/.nondex directory.

Checklist

• [x] Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
• [x] Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• [x] Write necessary unit-test to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add sample in dubbo samples project.
• [x] Make sure gitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 60.79%. Comparing base (efed26c) to head (75ab6e7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.3   #15848      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     60.77%   60.79%   +0.01%     
+ Complexity    11710    11706       -4     
============================================
  Files          1938     1938              
  Lines         88692    88692              
  Branches      13387    13387              
============================================
+ Hits          53903    53919      +16     
+ Misses        29260    29245      -15     
+ Partials       5529     5528       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests-java21	32.37% <ø> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
integration-tests-java8	32.51% <ø> (+0.07%)	:arrow_up:
samples-tests-java21	32.06% <ø> (+0.08%)	:arrow_up:
samples-tests-java8	29.71% <ø> (+0.02%)	:arrow_up:
unit-tests-java11	59.10% <ø> (+0.04%)	:arrow_up:
unit-tests-java17	58.57% <ø> (ø)
unit-tests-java21	58.57% <ø> (-0.03%)	:arrow_down:
unit-tests-java25	58.53% <ø> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:
unit-tests-java8	59.09% <ø> (+0.04%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.