xtern commented on code in PR #4161:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/4161#discussion_r1698100392
##########
modules/storage-api/src/testFixtures/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/storage/engine/AbstractStorageEngineTest.java:
##########
@@ -288,6 +291,54 @@ void testIndexRecoveryForMultipleTables(@Mock
StorageIndexDescriptorSupplier ind
}
}
+ /**
+ * Ensures that {@code flush(false)} does not trigger a flush explicitly,
but only subscribes to the next scheduled one.
+ */
+ @Test
+ void testSubscribeToFlush() throws Exception {
+ assumeFalse(storageEngine.isVolatile());
+
+ int tableId = 1;
+ int lastAppliedIndex = 10;
+ int lastAppliedTerm = 20;
+
+ StorageTableDescriptor tableDescriptor = new
StorageTableDescriptor(tableId, 1, DEFAULT_STORAGE_PROFILE);
+ StorageIndexDescriptorSupplier indexSupplier =
mock(StorageIndexDescriptorSupplier.class);
+
+ MvTableStorage mvTableStorage =
storageEngine.createMvTable(tableDescriptor, indexSupplier);
+
+ try (AutoCloseable ignored0 = mvTableStorage::close) {
+ CompletableFuture<MvPartitionStorage> mvPartitionStorageFuture =
mvTableStorage.createMvPartition(0);
+
+ assertThat(mvPartitionStorageFuture, willCompleteSuccessfully());
+ MvPartitionStorage mvPartitionStorage =
mvPartitionStorageFuture.join();
+
+ try (AutoCloseable ignored1 = mvPartitionStorage::close) {
+ assertThat(mvPartitionStorage.flush(),
willCompleteSuccessfully());
+
+ {
+ mvPartitionStorage.runConsistently(locker -> {
+ mvPartitionStorage.lastApplied(lastAppliedIndex,
lastAppliedTerm);
+
+ return null;
+ });
+
+ CompletableFuture<Void> subscribeFuture1 =
mvPartitionStorage.flush(false);
+ assertThat(subscribeFuture1, willTimeoutFast());
+
+ CompletableFuture<Void> subscribeFuture2 =
mvPartitionStorage.flush(false);
+ assertThat(subscribeFuture2, willTimeoutFast());
+
+ assertSame(subscribeFuture1, subscribeFuture2);
+ assertThat(mvPartitionStorage.flush(),
willCompleteSuccessfully());
+
+ assertTrue(subscribeFuture1.isDone());
+ assertTrue(subscribeFuture2.isDone());
Review Comment:
> you claim that flush(false) futures must be completed before flush()
future is completed
Not quite, this test claimed that flush(false) completed at the same time as
flush() completed.
I reworked it a bit to show that flush() returns the same future as a
preceding flush(false).
--
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]
