Skip to content
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

(6/8) Remove mutating functions of ProtectedStorageEntry #3582

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Nov 18, 2019

Conversation

julianknutsen
Copy link
Contributor

@julianknutsen julianknutsen commented Nov 9, 2019

New commit is 2c2a57e

This is good clean up anyway, but it will make more sense with the next 2 pull requests that start changing the ProtectedStorageEntry and ProtectedMailboxStorageEntry APIs.

@julianknutsen julianknutsen changed the title Remove mutating functions of ProtectedStorageEntry (6/6) Remove mutating functions of ProtectedStorageEntry Nov 9, 2019
@julianknutsen julianknutsen changed the title (6/6) Remove mutating functions of ProtectedStorageEntry (6/8) Remove mutating functions of ProtectedStorageEntry Nov 9, 2019
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.
Copy link
Member

@freimair freimair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utAck

Copy link
Contributor

@ripcurlx ripcurlx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@ripcurlx ripcurlx merged commit 874e525 into bisq-network:master Nov 18, 2019
@julianknutsen julianknutsen deleted the refactor-refresh-ttl branch November 18, 2019 18:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants