----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47004/#review133405 -----------------------------------------------------------
I think you misunderstood my review comment... I was wondering if you could change the tests to use your new method and remove the old awaitility work arounds... Also, I was wondering if we should throw an exception if the flush method exceeds the max wait time. Then the test will know exactly that the queue did not flush properly... - Jason Huynh On May 16, 2016, 5:39 a.m., xiaojian zhou wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/47004/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 16, 2016, 5:39 a.m.) > > > Review request for geode, anilkumar gingade and Dan Smith. > > > Bugs: geode-1351 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/geode-1351 > > > Repository: geode > > > Description > ------- > > This is for test purpose. > > An advanced version will be implemented later using function execution. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > geode-lucene/src/main/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/internal/LuceneEventListener.java > 9fdfd43 > > geode-lucene/src/main/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/internal/LuceneIndexImpl.java > 0b5f8fa > > geode-lucene/src/test/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneQueriesBase.java > c467a18 > > geode-lucene/src/test/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/internal/LuceneIndexImplJUnitTest.java > PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47004/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > xiaojian zhou > >
