[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2149?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin....
]
Sanne Grinovero commented on ISPN-2149:
---------------------------------------
I don't think the forum post is related, that seems to mention an occasional data
inconsistency related to cluster modes; my case is much simpler: doesn't depend on the
cluster mode - fails in local mode too - and is expressing very consistent behaviour.
FineGrainedAtomicMap implementation fails to consider removal of
elements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: ISPN-2149
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2149
Project: Infinispan
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Core API
Affects Versions: 5.1.5.FINAL, 5.2.0.ALPHA1
Reporter: Sanne Grinovero
Assignee: Vladimir Blagojevic
Priority: Blocker
Labels: affects_OGM
Fix For: 5.2.0.Alpha4, 5.2.0.Final
Most methods in the {{org.infinispan.atomic.FineGrainedAtomicHashMapProxy<K, V>}}
implementation seem to ignore the use case of removing keys from the map.
{{keySet()}}, {{values()}}, {{entrySet()}}, {{size()}}, {{isEmpty()}}
all ignore the fact that values in the uncommitted map might have been *removed* in the
current transaction, or have *intersections* with existing keys.
Note that failing to consider intersections has it return the wrong entries as committed
values overwrite the in-flight values.
Methods like {{containsKey}} don't check if the matched key is in fact stored in the
{{DeltaAwareCacheEntry}} as a deleted entry.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira