[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2007?focusedWorklogId=654637&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-654637
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on ARTEMIS-2007:
-------------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 23/Sep/21 17:36
Start Date: 23/Sep/21 17:36
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: gemmellr commented on a change in pull request #3742:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3742#discussion_r715014923
##########
File path:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/server/impl/QueueImpl.java
##########
@@ -3082,9 +3055,7 @@ private boolean deliver() {
numNoMatch = 0;
numAttempts = 0;
- if (consumer != redistributor) {
- ref = handleMessageGroup(ref, consumer, groupConsumer,
groupID);
- }
+ ref = handleMessageGroup(ref, consumer, groupConsumer,
groupID);
Review comment:
It didnt seem like it would continue from the current point (especially
if there were changes, when it replaces the underlying iterator) since it
implements the reset() with a "moveTo(-1)".
But, on closer inspection, it seems to do a mixture of things - it
apparently _does_ reset the cursor to the start as I thought due to the above,
but only in terms of 'the highest priority' sub-iterator. However it _does not_
reset the cursor within that particular sub-iterator to the start (except
perhaps when it has changed, when I guess it will thanks to replacing the
iterators). The stuff going on here so far isnt hitting the priority variation,
so it isnt seeing the distinction.
In short, I dont think it does exactly what either of us think it does, and
I'm thinking that QueueConsumersImplTest is lacking some tests to verify
whatever its actually meant to be doing overall.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 654637)
Time Spent: 13h 50m (was: 13h 40m)
> Messages not redistributed to consumers with matching filters when local non
> matching consumers are present
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-2007
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2007
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: AMQP, Broker
> Affects Versions: 2.6.3
> Reporter: Sebastian T
> Assignee: Gary Tully
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.19.0
>
> Attachments: AMQ2007Test.java, artemis-2007.zip
>
> Time Spent: 13h 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> We are experiencing the following issue:
> # We configure an Artemis cluster with ON_DEMAND message loadbalacing and
> message redistribution enabled.
> # We then connect a single consumer to *queues.queue1* on node1 that has a
> message filter that does NOT match a given message.
> # Then we send a message to *queues.queue1* on node1.
> # Then we connect a consumer to *queues.queue1* on node2 that has a filter
> matching the message we sent.
> We now would expect that the message on node1 currently not having any
> matching consumers on node1 to be forwarded or redistributed to node2 where a
> matching consumer exists.
> However that is not happening the consumer on node2 does not receive the
> message and in our case the message on node1 expires after some time despite
> a matching consumer is connected to the cluster.
> In the described scenario when we disconnect the consumer on node1 (that does
> not match the message anyway) the message is redistributed to node2 and
> consumed by the matching consumer.
> If no consumer was connected to node1, a message is sent to node1 and only
> then a matching consumer is connected to node2 the message is forwarded to
> node2 as expected.
> So I guess the core problem is that message redistribution of messages on
> node1 is not triggered when a matching consumer is connected to node2 while a
> *any* consumer already exists on node1 no matter if it actually matches the
> given message.
> I attached a maven test case that illustrates the issue.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
