-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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
Fix concurrency bug #26
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
33 changes: 33 additions & 0 deletions
33
cryptography-providers/jdk/src/jvmTest/kotlin/PoolingTest.kt
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ | ||
package dev.whyoleg.cryptography.providers.jdk | ||
|
||
import kotlinx.coroutines.* | ||
import kotlinx.coroutines.test.* | ||
import kotlin.test.* | ||
|
||
class PoolingTest { | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
fun testSequentialAccessOnCachedPoolShouldReuseInstance() { | ||
var instantiateCount = 0 | ||
val pool = Pooled.Cached { instantiateCount++; Any() } | ||
repeat(3) { | ||
pool.use { } | ||
} | ||
assertEquals(1, instantiateCount) | ||
} | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
fun testConcurrentAccessOnCachedPoolShouldNotReuseInstances() = runTest { | ||
var instantiateCount = 0 | ||
val pool = Pooled.Cached { instantiateCount++; Any() } | ||
pool.use { } // prime the pool with 1 instance; we should not be able to reuse that instance for all 3 concurrent usages below | ||
List(3) { | ||
launch { | ||
pool.use { | ||
delay(1000) | ||
} | ||
} | ||
}.joinAll() | ||
assertEquals(3, instantiateCount) | ||
} | ||
} |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
while testing concurrent access is fine, I would say that we don't really need it here.
We can easily write a sequential test here, something like:
So let's keep both sequential and concurrent variant.
Additionally it would be good to not only count
instantiate
call, but to check, that instances are different.So f.e make instance an
Int
instead of object and saveinstantiateCount
there. And then assert, that the instances used inuse
are different.And then, we are good to go!