-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
[#3821] Fix FluxBuffer
to request 1 when buffer is not modified
#3822
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Hey, @Sage-Pierce ! I apologize it took some time to respond. I reworked the bufferTimeout operator with fair backpressure recently, that's the reason for it. Considering all existing buffer* implementations I believe their behaviour should be consistent across the offering. I wonder how this requirement would influence other implementations as it feels a bit risky in the face of concurrency. Can you share your thoughts? After looking at the codebase it seems the authors didn't consider this scenario and assumed there's no filtering happening and once an item is added, the collection's size increases. I wonder whether including this check and handling is the way to go or perhaps limiting the possible Let me know, thanks! |
Hi @chemicL 👋 No worries about the delay 😄 I didn't immediately look into the other
I don't think that there's any more risk with this change regarding concurrency, since
I don't think that there is currently another way to implement "give me |
I came up with this:
Just as a conversation starter :) I do imagine this doesn't look as nice and the performance would be incomparable. I'll try to digest the rest of the comments and review the other implementations next. For now, can you also prepare a few sample {input, output} sets so that we know what the end goal is? I mean a sequence 1, 2, 1, 3 would yield [1, 2] and [1, 3] for n == 2, but would yield [1, 2, 3] for n == 3. Is that desired? Can you share some real world scenarios that come to mind that this would benefit? I tend to first try to understand the need and then try to work towards a solution that matches the expectations. This potential mismatch regarding expected supplied aggregator types is puzzling and it would be neat if we could comprehensively address this. |
Ah nice, that was abstractly what I had in my head, but I couldn't come up with that
The test I wrote for this changeset covers the basic expectation I think, and it looks like you already understand my intent quite well. I'll just format those and a few more below: Given
In my use case, I am iterating over time-bucketed data elements (from a database) and executing an I/O-bound process on them (a service call). That service call is maximally efficient when passed |
Thanks. For Replace
with
and you can observe the same outcome. Out of the others, |
For the Given
Due to that significant difference in how Given that there isn't actually a "hanging" issue with Thoughts? |
Thanks for following up. I agree that
In my view, the current behaviour when presented with a I think in order to merge something we'd need to cover all As this currently doesn't work correctly nor consistently we should make an effort to bring more clarity in the docs and tests. For
For
I understand this requires more work so please let me know if you're still keen to contribute. I'd just like us to have a consistent UX across similar operators and that requires a holistic approach. I'll be away for a week but if you make any progress, please do commit and I'll review the changes when I'm back. Thanks again @Sage-Pierce and I look forward to where this discussion leads us :) |
@chemicL I don't mind taking a stab at all of that 😄 May take some time, but may have an updated review next week. |
d36d94b
to
4a47fa9
Compare
- Make `Collection` behavior consistent among all FluxBuffer* operators - Added several more tests for all FluxBuffer* operators covering usage of `Set`
…ators that take a `bufferSupplier`
@chemicL I believe I have addressed your feedback, and I look forward to your re-review when you return. I will be on vacation for the first half of July, so it may take me a bit to follow up on further feedback. |
If a Set is used as the destination in
Flux.buffer
, the stream will not hang if/when there are duplicates in a given bufferPreviously,
FluxBuffer
was not taking the result of adding to the buffer into account. If adding to the buffer does not result in modifying it, an extrarequest(1)
should be issued.Fixes #3821