(9/9) [PR COMMENTS] Split up P2PDataStoreTest #3587
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fix a bug where remove() was called in the addMailboxData() failure path. 1. Sender's can't remove mailbox entries. Only the receiver can remove it so even if the previous add() failed and left partial state, the remove() can never succeed. 2. Even if the sender could remove, this path used remove() instead of removeMailboxData() so it wouldn't have succeed anyway. This patch cleans up the failure path as well as adds a precondition for the remove() function to ensure future callers don't use them for ProtectedMailboxStorageEntrys.
Add comments and refactor the body in order to make it easier to understand.
Refactor addProtectedStorageEntry for more readability and add comments to help future readers.
Refactor for readability and add comments for future readers.
Refactor for readability and add comments to help future readers.
Refactor for readability and add comments for future readers.
Removed duplicate log messages that are handled inside the various helper methods and print more verbose state useful for debugging. Updated potentially misleading comments around hashing collisions
…icates Now returns false on duplicate sequence numbers. This matches more of the expected behavior for an add() function when the element previously exists. The only callers are either P2PService users that always increment the sequence number or the onMessage() handler which doesn't verify the return so there will be no visible change other than the increased readability of the code and deduplication of the code paths.
Now returns false if the sequence number of the refresh matches the last operation seen for the specified hash. This is a more expected return value when no state change occurs. The only callers are either P2PService users that always increment the sequence number or the onMessage() handler which doesn't verify the return so there will be no visible change other than the increased readability of the code and deduplication of the code paths.
…duplicate sequence #s Remove operations are now only processed if the sequence number is greater than the last operation seen for a specific payload. The only creator of new remove entrys is the P2PService layer that always increments the sequence number. So, this is either left around from a time where removes needed to work with non-incrementing sequence numbers or just a longstanding bug. With the completion of this patch, all operations now require increasing sequence numbers so it should be easier to reason about the behavior in future debugging.
Use the DI Clock object already available in P2PDataStore, instead of calling System.currentTimeMillis() directly. These two functions have the same behavior and switching over allows finer control of time in the tests.
Deduplicate some code in the ProtectedStorageEntry constructors in preparation for passing in a Clock parameter.
Switch from System.currentTimeMills() to Clock.millis() so dependency injection can be used for tests that need finer control of time. This involves attaching a Clock to the resolver so all fromProto methods have one available when they reconstruct a message. This uses the Injector for the APP and a default Clock.systemDefaultZone is used in the manual instantiations. Work was already done in bisq-network#3037 to make this possible. All tests still use the default system clock for now.
Reduces non-deterministic failures of the refreshTTL tests that resulted from the uncontrollable System.currentTimeMillis(). Now, all tests have extremely fine control over the elapsed time between calls which makes the current and future tests much better.
Add tests for removing expired entries and optionally purging the sequence number map. Now possible since these tests have control over time with the ClockFake. The remove validation needed to be improved since deletes through the expire path don't signal HashMap listeners or write sequence numbers.
The original test would take over 5 seconds. Allow tests to set the number of required entries before purge to a lower value so the tests can run faster with the same confidence.
The custom code to verify the refreshTTLMessage's signature and update an entry isn't necessary. Just have the code construct an updated ProtectedStorageEntry from the existing and new data, verify it, and add it to the map. This also allows the removal of the ProtectedStorageEntry APIs that modify internal state.
The code around validating MailboxStoragePayloads is subtle when a MailboxStoragePayload is wrapped in a ProtectedStorageEntry. Add tests to document the current behavior.
Method bodies are copied from P2PDataStore to separate refactoring efforts and behavior changes. Identified a bug where a ProtectedMailboxStorageEntry mailbox entry could be added, but never removed.
Extract code from P2PDataStore, test it, and use new methods.
Now that the objects can answer questions about valid conditions for add/remove, ask them directly. This also pushes the logging down into the ProtectedStorageEntry and ProtectedMailboxStorageEntry and cleans up the message.
Add toString() for ProtectedStorageEntry so log messages have useful information and clean up the formatting.
Move the signature checks into the objects to clean up the calling code and make it more testable. The testing now has to take real hashes so some work was done in the fixtures to create valid hashable objects.
Move the signature checks into the objects to clean up the calling code and make it more testable.
This mailbox-only check can now exist inside the object for which it belongs. This makes it easier to test and moves closer to allowing the deduplication of the remove() methods.
The current check verifies that the stored Payload.ownerPubKey == stored Entry.ownerPubKey. This is the same check that was done when the item was originally added and there is no reason to do it again.
Let the objects compare their metadata instead of doing it for them. This allows for actual unit testing and paves the way for deduplicating the remove code paths. This patch also removes an unnecessary check around comparing the hash of the stored data to the new data's hash. That check can't fail since the hash was a requirement for the map lookup in the first place.
Make the remove validation more robust by asserting that the correct remove message is broadcast. This will provide a better safety net when combining the remove functions.
Now that all the code is abstracted and tested, the remove() and removeMailboxData() functions are identical. Combine them and update callers appropriately. Now, any caller don't need to know the difference and it removes the sharp edge originally found in bisq-network#3556
Use a more compact version of string formatting in log messages Rename isMetadataEquals to matchesRelevantPubKey which is more descriptive of the actual check
julianknutsen
force-pushed
the
split-test-files
branch
from
d57bc1d to
8da9ebc
Compare
Now that the unit tests cover all of the per-Entry validation, the tests that create specific configuration of ProtectedStorageEntry and ProtectedMailboxStorageEntry objects can be removed in favor of mockable Entrys. Using mocks prior to this patch was impossible due to the relationship between the Entry objects and the P2PDataStorage helper functions. Now that the objects are properly abstracted and tested, real unit tests can be written for the P2PDataStore module. This patch leaves the tests and adds an @ignore so the reviewer can see which unit test now supersedes the integration test.
Purge all the superseded tests and helper functions now that everything can be unit tested.
Add JavaDocs for the various Stub and Fake objects that are used in the P2PDataStore test so future developers can understand why they exist.
One monolithic test was useful when it was under development to reduce code churn, but now that the tests are complete it is easier to find and run a specific test when separated into separate test files. This also fixes a downside of Enclosed.class that didn't allow individual tests to be run in intellij.
All users pass in an instance of TestState, just make it an instance method instead of static.
All test callers now just ask the TestState for a SavedTestState instead of SavedTestState ctor. This makes more sense with the object relationship since SavedTestState is only used internally to TestState.
File name now reflects the actual tests run after everything was split up.
julianknutsen
force-pushed
the
split-test-files
branch
from
8da9ebc to
c81f8a6
Compare
|
I don't merge this PR as the commits will be part of #3609 anyways. So I'll close it as soon as #3609 gets merged. In the future I might do it differently as I do it right now. If we have bigger changes that rely on each other and are pushed as separate PRs, it might be better to only merge the final PR (squash and merge) and use the other PRs for initial feedback. So we don't end up with in-progress commits in our git history. Still the title of the final PR will need some change as it should sum up the whole change. Within the descriptions we should reference all other closed PRs for documentation purpose. |
|
From the author's side of things, each PR could have been independently merged and it would not have affected product stability. For cases like that AND if PRs are handled within a day or so then it allows iterative development and commits to master that can make smaller improvements that other devs will pull. You get some additional free "testing" although this should never be the sole reason to do it. The major benefit is any development on the same files or modules can be merged easier because you don't have 50 commits that may have merge conflicts. If we expect longer cycles, I think just merging the last PR may make sense. This is similar to a feature branch merge, but you still have the benefit of going back to the second parent to see the individual commits in the event of bugs. With squash-merging, it all shows up as one huge changeset and it is hard to dig through. After reading more about the different merge options available, I think I prefer merge-commits over squash-and-merge whenever possible. The ability to track a change back to the individual commits is useful for bisecting and understanding the original intention of a specific fix. If it is hard for devs to read I'm interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on the benefits of squash-and-merge so I can see if that would make my workflow any better. There may be something I am missing since I don't have a ton of experience with Git. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New commits start eb2f8f3
Review of #3554 asked for some iteration on the number of different tests that all existed in one file. To that end, this PR splits up the tests into multiple files, cleans up the common helper functions, and adds Javadoc comments on all of the test fixtures to help future reviewers understand how the tests work.
I would prefer to just put this PR on the end of the rest since it is strictly limited to test code. That will save a lot of the hassle of having to merge the various iterations of tests throughout the refactor effort across the new files.
I think the end result is in a good place and there is a clean separation between the common test helpers and the various entry points.