> On March 18, 2016, 9:21 p.m., Jason Huynh wrote:
> > geode-core/src/test/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/internal/cache/tier/sockets/ClientInterestNotifyDUnitTest.java,
> >  line 109
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45048/diff/1/?file=1306477#file1306477line109>
> >
> >     Are destroys the final events that are supposed to arrive? just 
> > wondering if this criteria should include the other event types as well.

Yes...The last event is destroy...The sequence of operations are updates, 
invalidate and destroy...


- anilkumar


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45048/#review124287
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 18, 2016, 9:16 p.m., anilkumar gingade wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45048/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 18, 2016, 9:16 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, anilkumar gingade, Barry Oglesby, Jason Huynh, 
> nabarun nag, Dan Smith, and xiaojian zhou.
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Test issue. Before validation test checks to see if the events are drained on 
> the server side, but doesn't count for time taken to receive the event on 
> client side and invoke its cache listener. Based on the machine speed and 
> thread invocation timing, this test can intermediately fail.
> 
> Added wait logic at client side CacheListener.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> geode-core/src/test/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/internal/cache/tier/sockets/ClientInterestNotifyDUnitTest.java
>  1559506d068fe03f4f46de67abeab147ce08cf4a 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45048/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Run the test by simulating the problem (using sleep and changing the count) 
> and validated test working as expected.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> anilkumar gingade
> 
>

Reply via email to