As far as I can tell from the documentation, this is the proper way to
listen for dead letters. Can anyone tell me why the dead letter event
seems to be ignored with this code? All it does is print the number 12345,
but I would expect it to also print the fact that it got a dead letter. My
Found a clue, it seems to work as I had initially expected if I listen
for UnhandledMessage instead of DeadLetter. Perhaps I misunderstood
something from the documentation.
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:25:27 AM UTC-7, Sean Shubin wrote:
As far as I can tell from the documentation
Getting there, it seems that one way to get something into DeadLetter is to
send a message to an actor that is stopped.
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, Sean Shubin wrote:
Found a clue, it seems to work as I had initially expected if I listen
for UnhandledMessage instead
ActorRef has a self type of ActorRefImpl. This means that if I want to
fake/stub/mock an ActorRef for test purposes, I cannot because I am forced
to know about ActorRefImpl. Instead of users of ActorRef being forced to
only use the ActorRefImpl implementation, ActorRef should be a minimal
functionality in one implementation; my guess is that your
> fake/stub/mock would reimplement what is already there but I may well be
> missing something.
>
> Another point that I’d like to hear more about is how you intend to test
> your behaviors in general. This question st
behavior was surprising to me, so I was
guarding against other surprises.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 1:01:09 AM UTC-7, √ wrote:
>
> Hi Sean,
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Sean Shubin <seans...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> While I was trying to stub out an execut
While I was trying to stub out an execution context to test concurrent
code, I noticed some surprising behavior demonstrated below. I would have
expected the exception thrown by the Future to cause reportFailure to be
invoked. To my surprise, reportFailure never got called at all, and the
on, a much easier way of ensuring correct
>> shutdown would be to supply a function of type () => Unit to the actor
>> that shall call it. Production code would supply () => system.terminate(),
>> but the test could provide whatever you want.
>>
>> Regards,
I had a chance to look over the typed actors a bit more. Here is my
feedback. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope you find it useful. I am
still really excited about typed actors, the main reason I have been
reluctant to switch to akka is that I was not willing to give up static
typing.
