Use ConTester to prove that the synchronized block is required #4672

davidburstrom · 2022-04-04T13:59:00Z

Relates to PR #4631

The issue that was fixed was never proven, due to lack of test tooling. Therefore, I wrote the ConTester utility (https://github.com/davidburstrom/contester) which allows for defining breakpoints in the production code.

If the synchronized block is removed, the tests start to fail for the reason indicated in #4609

codecov · 2022-04-04T14:13:40Z

Codecov Report

Merging #4672 (4a0a216) into main (2f5b8f5) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #4672   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     84.80%   84.80%           
- Complexity     3452     3453    +1     
=========================================
  Files           492      492           
  Lines         11326    11328    +2     
  Branches       2086     2086           
=========================================
+ Hits           9605     9607    +2     
  Misses          673      673           
  Partials       1048     1048

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...n/kotlin/io/github/detekt/parser/DetektPomModel.kt	`80.00% <100.00%> (+1.73%)`	⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2f5b8f5...4a0a216. Read the comment docs.

cortinico

That's awesome 👍 It would help us catch a lot of concurrency problems we have. As a side note: we probably want to wait for a stable release of Contester before merging and releasing this.

cortinico · 2022-04-06T23:49:06Z

detekt-parser/src/main/kotlin/io/github/detekt/parser/DetektPomModel.kt

@@ -26,6 +27,9 @@ class DetektPomModel(project: Project) : UserDataHolderBase(), PomModel {
            // Addresses https://github.com/detekt/detekt/issues/4609
            synchronized(extensionArea) {
                if (!extensionArea.hasExtensionPoint(extension)) {
+                    ConTesterBreakpoint.defineBreakpoint("DetektPomModel.registerExtensionPoint") {
+                        extensionArea == getRootArea()


could you put a named parameter here?

Could you provide an example of what you'd like it to look like?

ConTesterBreakpoint.defineBreakpoint( name = "DetektPomModel.registerExtensionPoint" onlyWhen = { extensionArea == getRootArea() } )

Something along those lines. onlyWhen could be when or condition or whatever you prefer

Ah. That's not possible unless there are Kotlin bindings for the library. condition is preferable, to mimic debugger terminology.

Sorry. I naively thought you wrote this in Kotlin, my bad :) You could add bindings for that btw.

condition is preferable, to mimic debugger terminology.

Yup that sounds great to me 👍

Yeah, I would not want to impose a Kotlin runtime dependency for such a specific tool :)

cortinico · 2022-04-06T23:49:43Z

detekt-parser/src/test/kotlin/io/github/detekt/parser/KtCompilerSpec.kt

+        ConTesterDriver.runToBreakpoint(thread1, "DetektPomModel.registerExtensionPoint")
+        ConTesterDriver.runUntilBlockedOrTerminated(thread2)
+        ConTesterDriver.join(thread1)


nit: That's mostly an API design decision, but they would read better if they're extension function instead.

I get what you're saying, though I'm not too keen on extension functions, especially since they would be called join(), start() etc which already overload and would be confusing. How about some sort of ConTester context, so the nature of the test is obvious?

especially since they would be called join(), start() etc which already overload and would be confusing.

Agree. If you end up this way, I would not use those names and be a bit more specific with function naming.

How about some sort of ConTester context, so the nature of the test is obvious?

That also works eventually :)

davidburstrom · 2022-04-07T08:20:56Z

That's awesome 👍 It would help us catch a lot of concurrency problems we have. As a side note: we probably want to wait for a stable release of Contester before merging and releasing this.

Thanks :) It'd especially useful to regression test them.

As for the side note: Yeah, I've possibly been too defensive about the naming, wanting to get a little bit of feedback on the tool before going 0.1.0 proper. I'd say its quite release ready as it is.

BraisGabin · 2022-04-07T18:42:21Z

It's odd to have test code in production code. But we already had regressions on this code so I imagine that it is worth it.

I assume that the overhead in production is near to 0, right?

davidburstrom · 2022-04-07T19:54:05Z

The overhead is 0 for repeated calls, see https://github.com/davidburstrom/contester#benchmarks
Though, I should benchmark the first call too.

davidburstrom · 2022-04-08T13:26:22Z

It's odd to have test code in production code. But we already had regressions on this code so I imagine that it is worth it.

I get what you mean. Though, it's not much different than usage of @VisibleForTesting annotations, and other production constructs that only exist to bolster testability. At least this one doesn't affect the API of the system under test.

I assume that the overhead in production is near to 0, right?

I've updated the benchmark, the first call is on micro-second duration.

davidburstrom · 2022-04-09T07:37:29Z

I've released a 0.1.0 GA, just waiting for it to appear on Maven Central.

BraisGabin · 2022-04-11T18:47:30Z

I vote to move this one to 1.21. We can merge it as soon as we release 1.20 but because it adds a really new library in production code and we released two RC already without it I think its safer and we lose nearly nothing by waiting.

davidburstrom · 2022-04-12T06:50:10Z

I'm fine with that :)

Relates to PR detekt#4631

davidburstrom · 2022-05-29T14:57:27Z

@BraisGabin @cortinico I've released version 0.2.0 of ConTester which fixes a minor bug. Since Detekt 1.20.0 is released, could we consider merging this? I've rebased on top of latest main.

davidburstrom · 2022-05-29T17:59:40Z

Thanks for that! :)

cortinico · 2022-05-29T19:14:52Z

@BraisGabin @cortinico I've released version 0.2.0 of ConTester which fixes a minor bug. Since Detekt 1.20.0 is released, could we consider merging this? I've rebased on top of latest main.

Thanks for doing this 🙏

cortinico reviewed Apr 6, 2022

View reviewed changes

BraisGabin approved these changes Apr 8, 2022

View reviewed changes

davidburstromspotify force-pushed the main-prove-pr-4631 branch 2 times, most recently from 8b8fcbf to 9572741 Compare April 9, 2022 07:31

davidburstrom marked this pull request as ready for review April 9, 2022 07:40

davidburstromspotify force-pushed the main-prove-pr-4631 branch from 9572741 to 151d8eb Compare April 9, 2022 07:47

cortinico approved these changes Apr 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

cortinico added this to the 1.20.0 milestone Apr 9, 2022

BraisGabin modified the milestones: 1.20.0, 1.21.0 Apr 11, 2022

cortinico added the blocked label Apr 12, 2022

Use ConTester to prove that the synchronized block is required

4a0a216

Relates to PR detekt#4631

davidburstromspotify force-pushed the main-prove-pr-4631 branch from 151d8eb to 4a0a216 Compare May 29, 2022 14:53

github-actions bot added build dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file labels May 29, 2022

vercel bot deployed to Preview May 29, 2022 14:59 View deployment

BraisGabin approved these changes May 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

BraisGabin merged commit a8cde4f into detekt:main May 29, 2022

cortinico removed the blocked label May 29, 2022

cortinico added the notable changes Marker for notable changes in the changelog label May 29, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Use ConTester to prove that the synchronized block is required #4672

Use ConTester to prove that the synchronized block is required #4672

davidburstrom commented Apr 4, 2022

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2022 •

edited

cortinico left a comment

cortinico Apr 6, 2022

davidburstrom Apr 7, 2022

cortinico Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom Apr 7, 2022

cortinico Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom Apr 9, 2022

cortinico Apr 6, 2022

davidburstrom Apr 7, 2022

cortinico Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 7, 2022

BraisGabin commented Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 8, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 9, 2022

BraisGabin commented Apr 11, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 12, 2022

davidburstrom commented May 29, 2022

davidburstrom commented May 29, 2022

cortinico commented May 29, 2022

Use ConTester to prove that the synchronized block is required #4672

Use ConTester to prove that the synchronized block is required #4672

Conversation

davidburstrom commented Apr 4, 2022

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2022 • edited

Codecov Report

cortinico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidburstrom commented Apr 7, 2022

BraisGabin commented Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 7, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 8, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 9, 2022

BraisGabin commented Apr 11, 2022

davidburstrom commented Apr 12, 2022

davidburstrom commented May 29, 2022

davidburstrom commented May 29, 2022

cortinico commented May 29, 2022

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2022 •

edited