belliottsmith commented on code in PR #57:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cassandra-accord/pull/57#discussion_r1302218141
##########
accord-core/src/test/java/accord/burn/BurnTest.java:
##########
@@ -230,37 +237,50 @@ static void burn(RandomSource random, TopologyFactory
topologyFactory, List<Id>
// not used for atomicity, just for encapsulation
AtomicReference<Runnable> onSubmitted = new AtomicReference<>();
- Consumer<Packet> responseSink = packet -> {
- ListResult reply = (ListResult) packet.message;
- if (replies[(int)packet.replyId] != null)
- return;
-
+ Runnable maybeTriggerNextRequest = () -> {
Review Comment:
Why is this refactor necessary? The explanation doesn't quite make sense to
me, as we were always enqueueing the next message before, unless we had already
done so by receiving a later response first.
I think in both version we potentially breach our concurrency restrictions,
as we will enqueue for both the heartbeat and any future response.
--
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]
