> On Aug. 8, 2016, 11:58 a.m., Peter Bacsko wrote:
> > core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/lock/TestMemoryLocks.java, line 352
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/47837/diff/4/?file=1461452#file1461452line352>
> >
> >     Yes I understand that you want to make sure that weakrefs are cleared 
> > up after a minor GC.
> >     
> >     However System.gc() makes no guarantees about when/how it runs. It 
> > might work just fine in the current JDK, but what if something changes in 
> > the next version? The the test might become flaky. Also someone might come 
> > along and disable explicit GC for some reason (unlikely, but can happen).
> >     
> >     Unfortunately there's no super-reliable way to test weakrefs, that's 
> > why I recommended checking the types - if the types are OK, we know that 
> > we're using Guava and we can trust it (eg. we can trust the fact that if 
> > the strenght is "weak", we're using weak refs so it will work as expected). 
> > We're not testing Guava functionality this way. If the assertion fails, it 
> > will fail consistently and we know that something has changed.
> >     
> >     But I'm not super-religious about it - it's just the way how I would do 
> > this kind of thing. The final decision is yours :)

I run in a loop, and I didn't see any issue. Anyway it's just test case, so let 
keep it for now and if its become flaky,  we can look it later on


> On Aug. 8, 2016, 11:58 a.m., Peter Bacsko wrote:
> > core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/lock/TestMemoryLocks.java, line 374
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/47837/diff/4/?file=1461452#file1461452line374>
> >
> >     OK, I'll leave this to you :)

I will fix it.


- Purshotam


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/47837/#review145089
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 3, 2016, 4:56 p.m., Purshotam Shah wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/47837/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 3, 2016, 4:56 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for oozie.
> 
> 
> Bugs: OOZIE-2501
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-2501
> 
> 
> Repository: oozie-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> OOZIE-2501 ZK reentrant lock doesn't work for few cases
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/command/wf/ActionStartXCommand.java 
> 41f4430f69cb7a9b132a4000c3e5c8aa7573c0a0 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/lock/MemoryLocks.java 
> 7d65ac0e24a62086732ec91fc24f89b62469451d 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/service/MemoryLocksService.java 
> d7c6a89fd47a219b2ec8ea4fe0caf05dc008943b 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/service/ZKLocksService.java 
> 952b90d5dfbfeccf4600238f75885c792709ffc7 
>   core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/lock/TestMemoryLocks.java 
> 61fec19b346748b22df1b58f014c32b1c04c8c1f 
>   core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/service/TestZKLocksService.java 
> d1acadfff36fff637fb9ccb8e3feffb24248c792 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47837/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Purshotam Shah
> 
>

Reply via email to