-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
HBASE-29810 Polish TestFileChangeWatcher #7600
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Use Awaitility instead of the unstable one time wait/notifyAll, and alsop upgrade to JUnit5
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
anmolnar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lgtm. Getting rid of Thread.sleep()s is good, but why do you say that wait()/notify() is unstable?
I mean 'one time' wait/notifyAll. Usually you need to use a while loop and a condition to do waiting, this is the javadoc for wait method in Java |
Use Awaitility instead of the unstable one time wait/notifyAll, and alsop upgrade to JUnit5 Signed-off-by: Andor Molnár <andor@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit e4de9c9)
Use Awaitility instead of the unstable one time wait/notifyAll, and alsop upgrade to JUnit5 Signed-off-by: Andor Molnár <andor@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit e4de9c9)
Use Awaitility instead of the unstable one time wait/notifyAll, and alsop upgrade to JUnit5 Signed-off-by: Andor Molnár <andor@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit e4de9c9)
Use Awaitility instead of the unstable one time wait/notifyAll, and alsop upgrade to JUnit5