Revert "Fix JENKINS-35272: Prevent afterDisconnect() from being called twice"

[MarkEWaite]

Revert "Fix JENKINS-35272: Prevent afterDisconnect() from being called twice"

Causes Windows test failures in UnsupportedRemotingAgentTest

Reverts pull request:

• Fix JENKINS-35272: Prevent afterDisconnect() from being called twice #26188

This reverts commit 799d362.

Fixes #26335

Testing done

Confirmed with git bisect on 6 different Windows computers that before 799d362 the UnsupportedRemotingAgentTest was passing and after 799d362 the UnsupportedRemotingAgentTest was failing.

Confirmed that reverting 799d362 causes UnsupportedRemotingAgentTest to pass on those 6 Windows computers.

Screenshots (UI changes only)

Before

After

Proposed changelog entries

• N/A - no changelog needed because the test regression has not been included in any release

Proposed changelog category

/label skip-changelog

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

N/A

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.

[MarkEWaite]

@daniel-beck I'm pleased to share that you are no longer the only person that has had a pull request merged with failing Windows tests because we are running a subset of Windows tests on pull requests. I believe #26188 is the same condition.

I still think it is worth only running a subset of Windows tests because we save so much money and so much time by running the subset.