Revert "Fix: LockManagerTest.updateValue is flaky (#13911)" #15235
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This reverts commit 78827be.
Contributor
|
@shibd So we need another solution for the flaky test? this PR just revert the previous solution? |
Member
Author
gaoran10
approved these changes
Apr 28, 2022
mattisonchao
approved these changes
May 4, 2022
codelipenghui
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2022
nicoloboschi
pushed a commit
to datastax/pulsar
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2022
…ache#15235) (cherry picked from commit 306a0a1) (cherry picked from commit c9ca16e)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation
#15091
The essential reason for #13911 is that two threads execute the refresh method concurrently. In PR #13911 change, it doesn't completely solve the problem, just avoid concurrent access by threads.
In #14283, The problem was radically resolved by changing below.
In #13911, although multi-threaded access is avoided, it will cause the test
future.get()to not get the expected result.This will cause the
updateValueWhenKeyDisappearstest to fail. So, revert this commit.Modifications
Documentation
no-need-doc