pjfanning commented on code in PR #3659: URL: https://github.com/apache/pekko/pull/3659#discussion_r4358233476
########## persistence-typed-tests/src/test/scala/org/apache/pekko/persistence/typed/state/scaladsl/DurableStateRevisionSpec.scala: ########## @@ -9,11 +9,15 @@ /* * Copyright (C) 2009-2022 Lightbend Inc. <https://www.lightbend.com> + * Copyright (C) 2020-2023 Lightbend Inc. <https://www.lightbend.com> Review Comment: Please update the existing Lightbend notice in place rather than adding a second one: ```suggestion * Copyright (C) 2009-2023 Lightbend Inc. <https://www.lightbend.com> ``` ########## persistence-typed-tests/src/test/scala/org/apache/pekko/persistence/typed/state/scaladsl/DurableStateRevisionSpec.scala: ########## @@ -180,4 +190,47 @@ class DurableStateRevisionSpec } } + + "The durable state user stash" must { + "unstash a large read-only batch in order without overflowing the stack" in { Review Comment: Does this test actually fail if the non-recursive unstash is disabled, i.e. with `pekko.persistence.typed.recurse-when-unstashing-read-only-commands = true`? `DurableStateBehaviorStashOverflowSpec` uses a stash capacity of 20000 because that is what it takes to overflow the stack, so I am not sure 5000 is enough here. If it does not fail with that setting, could we either increase the size until it does, or rename the test so it only claims ordered unstashing? -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
