gnodet opened a new pull request, #25160:
URL: https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/25160

   ## Summary
   
   _Claude Code on behalf of gnodet_
   
   `DefaultTracer.traceCounter` was a plain `long` incremented with `++` in 
`traceBeforeNode()`, which is called from concurrent routing threads. The `++` 
operator is a compound read-modify-write — a classic lost-update race under 
contention. This causes the trace counter to undercount when multiple routes 
execute concurrently.
   
   **Fix:** Switch `traceCounter` from `private long` to `private final 
AtomicLong`, consistent with `BacklogTracer` which already uses `AtomicLong` 
for the identical purpose.
   
   ### Changes
   - `DefaultTracer.java`: Change `traceCounter` field from `long` to 
`AtomicLong`; update `traceBeforeNode()` (`++` → `incrementAndGet()`), 
`getTraceCounter()` (direct read → `.get()`), and `resetTraceCounter()` 
(assignment → `.set(0)`)
   - New test: `DefaultTracerTraceCounterConcurrencyTest` — verifies counter 
accuracy with 8 threads × 250 messages, and validates `resetTraceCounter()`
   
   ### Context
   CAMEL-24227 previously fixed JMM-unsafe volatile patterns in `DefaultTracer` 
(boolean fields, trace pattern holder) but left `traceCounter` as a plain 
`long`. This PR completes that thread-safety work.
   
   ## Test plan
   - [x] New `DefaultTracerTraceCounterConcurrencyTest` passes (2 tests: 
concurrent accuracy + reset)
   - [x] Existing `ManagedTracerTest` not broken by change (pre-existing 
compilation issue in `camel-management` module is unrelated — 
`ManagedRoute.java` method signature mismatch)
   - [x] `sourcecheck` formatting validation passes
   - [ ] CI build
   
   🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to