There's this: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/NdUAY0crVjg/3fJX3Gn3cOYJ
Some thoughts: * I don't think there's really anything to save you from eventuality except careful consideration during the design of your data model. Pick your entity groups carefully and use XG transactions sparingly to move data "across" when you need atomicity. * A lot of the time eventuality is not a big deal. On the other hand, if you're building an accounting app, it probably is a big deal. * There's a difference between what your users experience and what your tests experience. Say you have a test for "add this product to the catalog and then check to see if it's in the catalog". In the real world it doesn't matter if your users see the new product right away. But your tests demand it immediately. The problem is with the test. I've "fixed" the tests by doing this in my fixture setup: newLocalDatastoreServiceTestConfig().setDefaultHighRepJobPolicyUnappliedJobPercentage(0.1f) Unfortunately a good argument can be made that this diminishes the value of the tests. Really some tests should be run with eventuality and others without. Anyone know if setDefaultHighRepJobPolicyUnappliedJobPercentage() can be called repeatedly after setup to switch back and forth? Jeff On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Aswath Satrasala < aswath.satras...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I am trying HRD on local dev server. I have bunch of webdriver tests for > different parts of my application that create entities and then doing a > list of all the entities. > My tests are failing in several places. It is due to the eventual > consistency of the HRD. The tests run fine on M/S and on both > production/local environment. > I have 20-30 KINDS, and entities are created for 1-or more KINDs depending > on the business logic, all in a transaction. Immediately, various reports > are done. They fail. > > My question: What pattern needs to be followed? My application has grown > very large during last 1.5 years or so. Doing re-factoring at every place > in the application for eventual consistency will be a very large effort for > a small team. I don't even know what extra work needs to be put to get this > fixed. > > Am I better of sticking with M/S. So far, I have managed and designed > entity relationships to work within one entity group. > > Are there any patterns coming out from the Objectify team to handle > Eventual consistency issue of the HRD? > > -Aswath > www.AccountingGuru.in > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to > google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
