[jboss-user] [JBoss Cache: Core Edition] - Re: is it possible for MVCCInvocationContext to have null mv

[dukehoops]

Got it. The following sequence will fail:

1. get()
2. pfer()
3. get() //fail here

However, if the 1st step is eliminated, second get succeeds:
pfer();
get();//success.

Here's the test:

package org.jboss.cache.api;
  | 
  | import org.jboss.cache.config.Configuration;
  | import org.jboss.cache.config.Configuration.NodeLockingScheme;
  | import org.jboss.cache.factories.UnitTestConfigurationFactory;
  | import org.testng.annotations.Test;
  | 
  | import javax.transaction.TransactionManager;
  | 
  | import org.jboss.cache.*;
  | import org.jboss.cache.lock.IsolationLevel;
  | 
  | /**
  |  * Tests that a node that was putFromExternalRead and then removed in TX1 does NOT
  |  * get returned in subsequent TX2.
  |  *
  |  * @author nikita_tovstoles at mba.berkeley.edu
  |  * @since 3.0.3.GA
  |  */
  | @Test(groups = {"functional", "pessimistic"}, sequential = true, testName = "api.RemovedNodeResurrectionInSubsequentTxTest")
  | public class RemovedNodeResurrectionInSubsequentTxTest extends AbstractSingleCacheTest {
  | 
  |     private static final Fqn A_B = Fqn.fromString("/a/b");
  |     private static final Fqn A = Fqn.fromString("/a");
  |     private static final Fqn A_C = Fqn.fromString("/a/c");
  |     private static final String KEY = "key";
  |     private static final String VALUE = "value";
  |     private static final String K2 = "k2";
  |     private static final String V2 = "v2";
  |     protected NodeSPI root;
  |     protected TransactionManager txManager;
  | 
  |     public CacheSPI createCache() {
  |         CacheSPI myCache = (CacheSPI<Object, Object>) new UnitTestCacheFactory<Object, Object>().createCache(UnitTestConfigurationFactory.createConfiguration(Configuration.CacheMode.LOCAL, false), false, getClass());
  |         myCache.getConfiguration().setCacheMode(Configuration.CacheMode.LOCAL);
  |         myCache.getConfiguration().setCacheLoaderConfig(null);
  |         myCache.getConfiguration().setNodeLockingScheme(NodeLockingScheme.MVCC);
  |         configure(myCache.getConfiguration());
  |         myCache.start();
  |         root = myCache.getRoot();
  |         txManager = myCache.getTransactionManager();
  | 
  |         return myCache;
  |     }
  | 
  |     protected void configure(Configuration c) {
  |         c.setIsolationLevel(IsolationLevel.REPEATABLE_READ);
  |     }
  | 
  |     public void testPferAndEvictInSameTx() throws Exception {
  | 
  |         Object val = null;
  | 
  |         cache.getRoot().addChild(A);
  | 
  |         txManager.begin();
  | 
  |         val = cache.get(A_B, KEY); //N1 IF THIS LINE IS EXECUTED, TEST FAILS BELOW AT N2
  | 
  |         //put in cache
  |         cache.putForExternalRead(A_B, KEY, VALUE);
  | 
  |         val = cache.get(A_B, KEY);
  |         assert val != null : "get() after pfer() returned " + val;  //N2 THIS WILL FAIL IF LINE N1 (ABOVE) IS EXECUTED (NOT COMMENTED OUT)
  | 
  |         //evict from cache
  |         cache.evict(A_B); //sometimes MVCCInvocationContext has ref to mvccTCtx, sometimes NOT
  | 
  |         //verify eviction
  |         val = cache.get(A_B, KEY);
  |         assert val == null : "get() after evict() returned " + val;
  | 
  |         txManager.commit();
  | 
  |     }
  | }
  | 

Here's the output:

anonymous wrote : 
  | 	
  | 
  | java.lang.AssertionError: get() after pfer() returned null
  | 	at org.jboss.cache.api.RemovedNodeResurrectionInSubsequentTxTest.testPferAndEvictInSameTx(RemovedNodeResurrectionInSubsequentTxTest.java:65)
  | 	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886)
  | 	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908)
  | 	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)
  | 

However, if line marked as "N1" is commented out, test passes. Any ideas?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4217201#4217201

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4217201