Github user ahgittin commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/480#discussion_r101878328
--- Diff:
core/src/test/java/org/apache/brooklyn/core/entity/EntityConfigTest.java ---
@@ -244,59 +252,152 @@ public void
testGetConfigMapWithSubValueAsStringNotCoerced() throws Exception {
// of the previous "test.confMapThing.obj".
//
// Presumably an earlier call to task.get() timed out, causing it to
cancel the task?
+ // Alex: yes, a task.cancel is performed for maps in
+ //
AbstractEntity$BasicConfigurationSupport(AbstractConfigurationSupportInternal).getNonBlockingResolvingStructuredKey(ConfigKey<T>)
+
+ //
// I (Aled) question whether we want to support passing a task (rather
than a
// DeferredSupplier or TaskFactory, for example). Our
EntitySpec.configure is overloaded
// to take a Task, but that feels wrong!?
- @Test(groups="Broken")
- public void testGetTaskNonBlocking() throws Exception {
- final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
- Task<String> task = Tasks.<String>builder().body(
+ //
+ // If starting clean I (Alex) would agree, we should use TaskFactory.
However the
--- End diff --
Interesting idea that it is a single (shared) task. I feel like each
caller gets its own instance/subscription hence `TaskFactory`. But for another
day... (and in any case I'd love us to move to a JS promise/then model)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
