[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17381073#comment-17381073
]
Jogesh Anand commented on CASSANDRA-16621:
------------------------------------------
{quote}
Regarding the poll interval, even though 1ms is probably the most similar thing
to the original implementation, I wonder whether it would be too low. Perhaps
we could use Awaitility's default interval of 100ms and then add an optimistic
poll delay of zero?{quote}
{quote}But moving to 100ms would might even make more sense to avoid spinning
the CPU on yields{quote}
Agree that 1ms is too low. 100ms sgtm. I also think fibonacci polling interval
might also be a good option. Thoughts?
{code:java}
.pollInterval(fibonacci(TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS))
{code}
> Replace spinAsserts code with Awaitility code
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-16621
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16621
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Test/unit
> Reporter: Berenguer Blasi
> Assignee: Jogesh Anand
> Priority: Normal
> Labels: low-hanging-fruit
> Fix For: 4.0.x
>
>
> Currently spinAsserts does a similar thing to Awaitility which is being used
> more and more. We have now 2 ways of doing the same thing so it would be good
> to consolidate
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
