I have written a multi thread code which will verify data in database and assert accordingly. But the assertions are not working in this environment.
Code to create threads
Runnable r = new WorkerThread(subasscociation);
new Thread(r).start();
new Thread(r).start();
The code for thread start function is
public class WorkerThread implements Runnable {
ArrayList<Association> alInsertedAssociations;
public WorkerThread(ArrayList<Association> alInsertedAssociations) {
this.alInsertedAssociations = alInsertedAssociations;
}
public void run() {
SecondLevelVerification slv = new SecondLevelVerification();
slv.verify(alInsertedAssociations,"add", false);
}
}
The function which asserts
public void verify(...)
{
//Code to check database
org.testng.Assert.assertNotEquals(label, 0);
}
But the code doesn't seem to work ie it doesnt assert correctly if the database doesn't have that entry.
Assertions work by throwing an exception, which in your case doesn't reach the handler installed by the testing framework. The latter monitors only the thread in which the test was started, whereas the exception is thrown from a different thread (created from within the test). See these questions for more details:
How to catch an Exception from a thread
java thread exceptions
The accepted answers therein suggest how to solve your problem. Here is a draft version of a class that will allow to propagate exceptions occurring inside your threads to the testing framework:
class MyThread extends Thread implements Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler {
Throwable interceptedException = null;
MyThread(Runnable r) {
super(r);
this.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(this);
}
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable ex) {
interceptedException = ex;
}
public void myjoin() throws Throwable {
super.join();
if ( interceptedException != null )
throw interceptedException;
}
}
Your will have to use MyThread instead of Thread in your test code and call the myjoin() method:
Runnable r = new WorkerThread(subasscociation);
final myThread1 = new MyThread(r);
final myThread2 = new MyThread(r);
myThread1.start();
myThread2.start();
...
myThread1.myjoin();
myThread2.myjoin();
Related
I'd like to check to see if a Thread is Interrupted, from some other Thread, without polling this to check - i.e. some kind of monitor.
Specifically, what I am trying to do is force-kill (Stop) a Thread when it is Interrupted. I will include a code example below of a trivial example of what I have done so far - it works, but polling to check if the Thread is interrupted is sub-optimal and I would like to avoid this.
public class ThreadTest
{
public static void main(final String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
final Thread outerThread = new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
// Need to externally monitor the thread to detect and process interrupts (for cancellation)
final Thread thread = Thread.currentThread();
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (final InterruptedException e)
{}
if (thread.isInterrupted())
{
// Then kill it
thread.stop();
return;
}
}
}
}.start();
uninterruptibleForever();
}
};
outerThread.start();
// Ensure the thread has time to start up
Thread.sleep(500);
outerThread.interrupt();
// The thread should terminate at this point and not continue.
}
/** Some arbitrary task that runs forever and ignores interrupts */
public static void uninterruptibleForever()
{
while (true)
{
System.out.println(MessageFormat.format("I''m still running at {0}", new Date().toLocaleString()));
}
}
}
I can't recommend strongly enough that you don't use Thread#stop().
It should never have existed, was deprecated very quickly and frankly should have been removed about 20 years ago.
You have no idea what the thread is doing when you stop it and it is very easy to corrupt shared objects and leave external resources (e.g. files) in an invalid state.
Suppose the thread is in the middle of resizing a shared ArrayList<> there's risk the object will be corrupted and your whole program fails intermittently in ways you cannot fix.
Do not use Thread#stop() it is broken and cannot be fixed.
It's a terrible feature of Java that it leads people into invalid techniques regarding threads.
Caveat over - how about just overriding interrupt() in a sub-class?
public void interrupt(){
this.stop();
}
You've decided to sub-class Thread (rather than Runnable) so this will "work". "work" in the sense of what you're doing. Not actually work or anything.
The only valid way to solve this is have the thread you want to terminate co-operate by responding to interrupt() as an instruction to come to a suitable point and then terminate cleanly.
Or you can create another flag indicating the thread should end.
I don't know why you need to monitor the thread externally. But here is a small sample how you could do it if you really need it:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
public abstract class MonitoredCallable implements Runnable {
private final List<InterruptedHandler> interruptedHandlers = new LinkedList<>();
protected abstract void runInternal() throws Exception;
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
runInternal();
} catch(Exception ex) {
}
for (InterruptedHandler interruptedHandler : interruptedHandlers) {
interruptedHandler.threadInterrupted(this);
}
}
public void addInterruptedHandler(InterruptedHandler interruptedHandler) {
this.interruptedHandlers.add(interruptedHandler);
}
public static interface InterruptedHandler {
void threadInterrupted(Thread t);
}
}
Now just use it like this:
MonitoredThread mt = new MonitoredThread() {
#Override
protected void runInternal() throws Exception {
//dosomething
}
};
mt.addInterruptedHandler(t->t.stop());
A runnable task parses incoming xml file and is invoked from a different class. Sometimes the parsing may fail and throw an exception. The task should be running even when exceptions occur. I tried restarting the same task in a new thread using Uncaught exception handler. But wanted more ideas on that.
Class invoking thread : (invokes thread)
It works fine to restart same task in new thread but probably handling exceptions without leading to a thread exit should be the way
Thread fileProcessThread = new Thread(FileProcessor);
fileProcessorThread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler()
{
#Override
public void uncaughtException (Thread arg0, Throwable arg1)
{
FileProcessor newObject = new FileProcessorTask();
Thread t = new Thread(newObject);
t.start();
}
});
fileProcessor.start();
Task Class :
public void run() {
try {
xmlparser.parse(incomingXmlFile);
}
catch (Exception e) {
Thread.currentThread.getUncaughtExceptionalHandler().uncaughtException(Thread.currentThread(), e);
// this invokes uncaughtException to restart thread ?
}
}
I have a watch service (file directory scan) running, so I need the task all the time, even if thread terminates.
When an exception occurs and call reaches the uncaughtExceptionHandler, the state of the thread is Invalid to start again. So you need to create a new thread and start again.
Code from Thread.start()
// A zero status value corresponds to state "NEW".
if (threadStatus != 0)
throw new IllegalThreadStateException();
However this could easily result in an infinite loop. (exception -> catch -> retry -> exception -> catch ...)
I recommend having a counter which stops the retries after a certain point.
Public class TestClass{
static AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger();
static class MyExceptionHandler implements UncaughtExceptionHandler {
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
System.out.println("caught");
if (counter.get() == 3) {
System.out.println("Reached Max. retries, exiting");
} else {
counter.incrementAndGet();
new Thread(new MyTask()).start();
}
}
}
static class MyTask implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.currentThread().setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new MyExceptionHandler());
System.out.println("slept");
Thread.sleep(500);
double d = 0 / 0;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception {
Thread thread = new Thread(new MyTask());
thread.start();
}
}
I've used static AtomicInteger but in your implementation probably have a common object which can be passed on from one thread to another and let that object have a counter.
The issue is that I have a method starting a new thread for a time-consuming work. I want to test the callback result, but the child thread may still running, so as a result, what I get is not the right stub.
I think the code may explain itself:
public class JustAClass {
//it is a callback for async
public interface JustACallBack {
void callFunc(JustAResult result);
}
//this is the result interface
public interface JustAResult {
}
//this is a real class for the interface
public class JustAResultReal implements JustAResult{
public JustAResultReal(String content) {this.content = content;}
public String content;
}
//here is the key function
public void threadFunc(final JustACallBack callBack) {
BCCache.executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//just to simulate a time-consuming task
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
//now we callback
callBack.callFunc(new JustAResultReal("can you reach me"));
}
});
}
}
and the test function could be(I am using mockito):
#Test
public void testThreadFunc() throws Exception {
JustAClass justAClass = new JustAClass();
JustAClass.JustACallBack callBack = Mockito.mock(JustAClass.JustACallBack.class);
justAClass.threadFunc(callBack);
//add this line, we can get the expected result
Thread.sleep(1200);
Mockito.verify(callBack).callFunc(captor.capture());
System.out.println(((JustAClass.JustAResultReal)captor.getValue()).content);
}
I know we can add a sleep to wait and expect that the child thread would exit within the period, but could there be a better way? Actually how could I know how long the child thread would take? Setting a very long time can be an approach but just seems not very nice.
The general approach in #stalet's answer is close, but doesn't quite work since any assertion failures from a separate thread are not noticed by the main thread. Therefore your test will always pass, even when it shouldn't. Instead, try using ConcurrentUnit (which I authored):
#Test
public void testInvoke() throws Throwable {
Waiter waiter = new Waiter();
JustAClass justAClass = new JustAClass();
JustAClass.JustACallBack callBack = new JustAClass.JustACallBack() {
#Override
public void callFunc(final JustAClass.JustAResult result) {
waiter.assertNotNull(result);
waiter.assertTrue(result instanceof JustAClass.JustAResultReal);
waiter.resume();
}
};
justAClass.threadFunc(callBack);
waiter.await(1200, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
The key here is ConcurrentUnit's Waiter will properly report any assertions failures to the main test thread and the test will pass or fail as it should.
I aggree with #Gimbys comment about this is no longer a unit-test when you start testing the the threading aspect.
Nevertheless it is interesting as a way to integration-test a asynchronous invokation.
To avvoid sleep i tend to use the class CountDownLatch to wait for invokations.
In order to count down you need an actuall implementation of the callback interface - so in my example I have made a mock implementation of this.
Since there is no actual methods to fetch the data - i am just testing that it is in fact a instance of the JustAReal interface.
#Test
public void testInvoke() throws Exception {
final CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1); //1 is how many invokes we are waiting for
JustAClass justAClass = new JustAClass();
JustAClass.JustACallBack callBack = new JustAClass.JustACallBack() {
#Override
public void callFunc(final JustAClass.JustAResult result) {
assertNotNull("Result should not be null", result);
assertTrue("Result should be instance of JustAResultReal", result instanceof JustAClass.JustAResultReal);
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
};
justAClass.threadFunc(callBack);
if(!countDownLatch.await(1200, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)){
fail("Timed out, see log for errors");
}
}
How do we implement efficient exception handling when using threads.
I have a main program which creates 3 threads. How do we handle the exceptions for the exceptions thrown during the execution of thread?
Can we use the try/catch block or uncaughtexception. If so, can you please share some samples.
public class MyThreadTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread newThread = new Thread(new ThreadWithException());
// Add the handler to the thread object
newThread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler(){
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
System.out.println("ERROR! An exception occurred in " + t.getName() + ". Cause: " + e.getMessage());
}
});
newThread.start();
}
}
/**
* This thread throws a custom exception in its run method.
*/
class ThreadWithException implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
throw new RuntimeException("Application Specific Exception!!");
}
}
Either you can use:
Thread#setUncaughtExceptionHandler to specify some code that is run when an exception is thrown (outside of normal program flow), or:
ExecutorService#invokeAll to run all of your blocks, and inspect the returned list for Future#get()'s throwing of ExecutionException. Another option is CompletionService, but this is slightly harder to use for such a simple case.
You can use try / catch block strategy:
Thread t = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//..thread code
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
};
It is easy to implement but in case of exception main thread of your application will never know what happened inside of child thread.
Better method would be to spawn threads using ExecutorService (as mentioned by FauxFaux). This will allow you to easily pass information about the error to main thread. Besides that, using ExecutorService allows you to write less code. You won't have to manage threads in your code but leave it for ExecutorService instead.
beacuse , recently, I have write a program with about 3 threads in order to fill a lot data from mysql and mongoDb to ElasticSearch. I share u my code.
I use java.util.concurrent.Executors.
First I have a main class. It calls
public void start() throws Exception {
this.logger.info("Main: Start the worker manually");
schedulerThreadPool = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(this.maxNumberOfThread);
for (int i = 0; i < this.maxNumberOfThread; i++) {
Worker worker = new Worker();
long delay = i * this.sleepBetweenTaskStart;
schedulerThreadPool.scheduleAtFixedRate(worker, delay, this.minTimeBetweenEachTask, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
}
And Worker implements Runnable and get Thread Id by below code.
this.threadId = Thread.currentThread().getId();
And just try catch in each Worker. Everything works normally.
#Override
public void run() {
try {
do...
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
I have a project for my "Operating Systems". I need to write 2 programs with java...
write a program that produce Water with 2 method Oxygen and Hydrogen.
method Oxygen produce one Oxygen and method Hydrogen produce one hydrogen. when 2 Hydrogen and one Oxygen was existed H2O created. I must write this with with Semaphores and threads.
Write the above problem with Monitors and Sychronize.
I've writed some code for this but it gives illegal monitor exeption...
please help me to correct it...
This is my code:
// class for implement Thread for oxygen
public class Thread_O implements Runnable {
public void run() {
thread t = new thread();
try {
t.oxygen();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Thread_O.class.getName());
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
// class for implement Thread for Hydrogen
public class Thread_H implements Runnable {
public void run() {
thread t = new thread();
try {
t.Hydrogen();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Thread_H.class.getName());
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
//class for method Oxygen and Hydrogen
public class thread {
Semaphore O = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore H = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore H2O = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore safe = new Semaphore(1, true);
public void oxygen() throws InterruptedException {
safe.wait();
H.wait();
H.wait();
H2O.release();
H2O.release();
Safe.release();
// System.out.println("O2...!");
}
public void Hydrogen() throws InterruptedException {
H.release();
H2O.wait();
// System.out.println("H2...!");
}
}
and in action of Oxygen Button:
Thread th = new Thread(new Thread_O());
th.start();
I'm not going to decode your homework for you, but an IllegalMonitorException is thrown when you're trying to wait() on an object without being synchronized. So to wait for an object called list:
synchronized (list) {
try {
list.wait();
} catch(Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
You have to understand how the producer/consumer mechanism work.
Here you'll have one consumer thread and two producers.
First you'll have one thread producing oxygen, and other producing hydrogen.
Then, those molecules should be places "somewhere" ok? That "something" is the thing that has to be monitored and synchronized.
So it should go something like this:
class Water {
char [] waterMolecule = new char[3]; // <-- synchronize access to this
char hydrogen(){
return 'H';
}
char oxygen() {
return 'O';
}
void produce() {
Thread t = new Thread( new Runnable() {
synchronize( waterMolecule ) {
waterMolecule[0] = hydrogen();
}
}):
.... produce the others
}
void consume() {
synchronize watermolecule
if waterMolecule is complete
create water and clean out the molecule.
}
}
That's the basic idea.
Just bear in mind that you won't be able to produce another particle of oxigen until the previous one has been consumed.
Also you must always call wait in a while loop
Here's how that wait/synchronize should be coded.
Here's a number of producer/consumer samples.
Although your homework is already due, I'd like to propose CyclicBarrier as the best solution for this scenario.
It allows some kind of rendezvous for the different threads (here: your molecule producers) and triggers the execution of an additional runnable on completition (here: creation of h20).