Fix potential concurrent modification exception in DiscoveryNodeFilters #19701
Conversation
msfroh
force-pushed
the
fix_concurrent_modification_in_DiscoveryNodeFilters
branch
from
b885744 to
fac3725
Compare
|
❌ Gradle check result for fac3725: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
|
❌ Gradle check result for fac3725: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
|
❌ Gradle check result for fac3725: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
|
❌ Gradle check result for fac3725: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
msfroh
force-pushed
the
fix_concurrent_modification_in_DiscoveryNodeFilters
branch
from
fac3725 to
979a496
Compare
|
❌ Gradle check result for 979a496: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
|
❌ Gradle check result for 979a496: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
msfroh
force-pushed
the
fix_concurrent_modification_in_DiscoveryNodeFilters
branch
from
979a496 to
016aaa3
Compare
|
❌ Gradle check result for 016aaa3: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
While I haven't seen concurrency issues in DiscoveryNodeFilters, the included unit test (which fails without cloning the original filters) shows that there is potential for an exception. While in here, I also made some reads from volatile variables in FilterAllocationDecider more atomic to avoid potential null-pointer exceptions. Signed-off-by: Michael Froh <[email protected]>
msfroh
force-pushed
the
fix_concurrent_modification_in_DiscoveryNodeFilters
branch
from
016aaa3 to
374fe57
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #19701 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 73.11% 73.00% -0.11%
+ Complexity 70823 70715 -108
============================================
Files 5732 5732
Lines 324255 324258 +3
Branches 46924 46925 +1
============================================
- Hits 237087 236733 -354
- Misses 68076 68415 +339
- Partials 19092 19110 +18 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
msfroh
deleted the
fix_concurrent_modification_in_DiscoveryNodeFilters
branch
3 participants
Description
While I haven't seen concurrency issues in DiscoveryNodeFilters, the included unit test (which fails without cloning the original filters) shows that there is potential for an exception.
While in here, I also made some reads from volatile variables in FilterAllocationDecider more atomic to avoid potential null-pointer exceptions.
Related Issues
N/A
Check List
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.