Develop Reference

test multithreading (CompletableFuture) with EasyMock

I would like to add tests for method, which contains CompletableFuture:
public void report(List<String> srcList) {
if (srcList != null) {
...
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() ->
....
srcList.forEach(src-> downloader.send(url)));
}
}
I would like to test, that method send is called. My test looks like:
#Test
public void _test() {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
eventReporter.report(events);
verify(downloader);
}
And I get such error Downloader.send("http://xxxx//"): expected: 2, actual: 0
One way to avoid this error, is to set Thread.sleep(100); timeout. Then the thread will wait and verify that the method had called. But this will increase tests time.
Is there other way to test multithreading with EasyMock?

It is a bad practice to unit test asynchronoys code with Thread.sleep() method
because if it even works test will be unstable and flicker (run 3 times 2 pass and 1 fail)
if you set up big time of sleep and write few tests like this you meet a big time of execution
that may be exceed dozens of seconds. For complete this task you need to decouple asynchronous part
of you code from synchronous. Example how to do it:
class Service {
private Downloader downloader;
private ExecutorService service;
public Service (Downloader downloader, ExecutorService service) {
//set variables
}
public void doWork(List<String> list) {
for (String item : list) {
service.submit(() -> {
downloader.download(item);
});
}
}
}
ExecutorService is interface and we need to make our Service that will be synchronous
class SycnronousService impliments ExecutorService {
//methods empty implementations
public void submit(Runnable runnable) {
runnable.run(); //run immediately
}
//methods empty implementations
}
public class ServiceTest {
public void shouldPassAllItemsToDownloader() {
Downloader mockDownloader = AnyMockFramework.mockIt();
Service service = new Service(mockDownloader, new SycnronousService());
List<String> tasks = Arrays.asList("A", "B");
service.doWork(tasks);
verify(mockDownloader).download("A"); //verify in your way with EasyMock
verify(mockDownloader).download("B"); //verify in your way with EasyMock
// no more Timer.sleep() , test runs immeadetely
}
}
You need to replace CompletableFuture to something like in my example, because
unit testing this code not able in this way.
Later in you app you will be able to replace SycnronousService to asynchronous implementation and all will be work as expected.

I agree with #joy-dir 's answer. And you should probably do what she said to simplify your testing.
For the sake of completeness, your problem here is that the verify is called before your tasks being actually finished. There are many things you could do.
One is to loop on verify.
#Test
public void test() throws Exception {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
report(events);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try {
verify(downloader);
return;
} catch(AssertionError e) {
// wait until it works
}
Thread.sleep(10);
}
verify(downloader);
}
It won't sleep a long time for nothing when successful. However, you indeed need to make sure you wait enough to prevent the test from being flaky.
Another solution is actually to use the CompletableFuture returned by runAsync. I prefer this solution.
public CompletableFuture<Void> report(List<String> srcList) {
if (srcList != null) {
return CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> srcList.forEach(src-> downloader.send(src)));
}
return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
}
#Test
public void test2() throws Exception {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
CompletableFuture<Void> future = report(events);
future.get(100, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
verify(downloader);
}
Finally, there is a hackish way. You ask the common pool if it is done. It is hackish because something else might use it. So it's cute but I wouldn't really recommend it.
#Test
public void test3() throws Exception {
List<String> events = new ArrayList();
events.add("http://xxxx//");
events.add("http://xxxx//");
expect(downloader.send(events.get(0))).andReturn("xxx").times(2);
replay(downloader);
report(events);
while(!ForkJoinPool.commonPool().isQuiescent()) {
Thread.sleep(10);
}
verify(downloader);
}

How to stop a long running function

Consider this code:
class Solver {
private boolean abort = false;
public void solve(List<Case> cases) {
while(!abort) {
for(Case c : cases)
compute(c); // method that take too long to finish
}
}
// a bunch of methods
public void abort() {
abort = true;
}
}
// in another class
Solver solver = new Solver();
solver.solve(cases);
public void onSolveAborted() {
solver.abort();
}
How can I change this solution so I can abort the solve function instantly. I know I can implements the Runnable interface in Solver class so I can stop the thread. This will introduce many changes in our code and I don't know if the framework we are using allow creating threads.

This will not be possible without the use of threads. Something has to set abort() before the running thread will stop. Take a look at this example:
class Solver implements Runnable {
private List<Case> cases;
public Solver(List<Case> cases) {
this.cases = cases;
}
private void compute(Case c) {
try {
// Do some computation here
} finally {
// Sound the horns! Abandon ship!
}
}
public void solve(List<Object> cases) {
for (Case c : cases) {
try {
compute(c); // method that take too long to finish
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Hmm, maybe I should take the hint...
break;
}
}
}
public void run() {
solve(cases);
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
List<Case> cases = new ArrayList<Case>();
// Populate cases
Thread t = new Thread(new Solver(cases));
t.run();
do {
// Wait 30 seconds
t.join(30 * 1000);
// Not done yet? Lets drop a hint..
if(t.isAlive()) {
t.interrupt();
}
} while (t.isAlive());
}
}
Very simply, it launches solve in a thread. The main thread waits up to 30 seconds then interrupts solve method. The solve method catches the interruption and gracefully exits the computation. Unlike your solution using boolean abort, this launches an InterruptedException from anywhere in your thead code (and you should deal with the exception accordingly!) allowing you to halt execution at any time.
If you want more control, you can add the try.. catch inside compute so you can have a finally clause to close any opened files or whatnot. Perhaps better still, have a try.. finally in compute to deal with closing things in a "nice" way and the try.. catch (InterruptedException) in the solve method to handle what happens in the case of interruption (in short, cleanup logic and interruption logic don't have to be in the same method).

Do somthing like this
Let say, you have 100 cases, 10 has been solved and you want to abort remaing 90.
In your code, you are solving all the cases in one iteration, after that while loop check for abort.
public void solve(List<Case> cases) {
Iterator<Case> iterator = cases.iterator();
while (iterator.hasNext() && !abort) {
Case c=iterator.iterator.next();
compute(c);
}
}

Change your class to Runnable and use ExecutorService to run it. Then you can just use methods "shutDown()" or "shutDownNow()" methods. This is cleaner and less intrusive then what you suggested in your own question. Plus killing thread manually is a REALLY BAD idea. At some point in JDK itself in thread method "kill()" was killed as there is no clean way to do so properly

Java infinite loop performance

I have a Thread that only has to work when a certain circumstance comes in. Otherwise it just iterates over an empty infinite loop:
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(ball != null) {
// do some Calculations
}
}
}
Does it affect the performance when the loop actually does nothing but it has to check if it has to do the calculation every iteration?
Only creating a this Thread when needed is not an option for me, because my class which implements Runnable is a visual object which has be shown all the time.
edit: so is the following a good solution? Or is it better to use a different method (concerning performance)?
private final Object standBy = new Object();
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized (standBy) {
while(ball != null) // should I use while or if here?
try{ standBy.wait() }
catch (InterruptedException ie) {}
}
if(ball != null) {
// do some Calculations
}
}
public void handleCollision(Ball b) {
// some more code..
ball = b;
synchronized (standBy) {
standBy.notify();
}
}

You might want to consider putting the thread to sleep and only waking it up only when your 'ball' variable becomes true. There are multiple ways of doing this, from using the very low level, wait and notify statements to using the java.util.concurrent classes which provide a less error prone way of doing this. Have a look at the documentation for the condition interface. A data structure like a BlockingQueue would also be a solution.

Yes it does. This is the most simple implementation of busy waiting, and should be avoided whenever possible. Use wait/notify or java.util.concurrent mechanisms. Maybe you should be more specific about what exactly you want to achieve to get more useful responses.

Yes, it will certainly affect performance. To increase performance, you can consider putting in a bit of a time delay (say 500ms or 1000ms or even higher) in your code depending how crucial timing is to you.

Share a BlockingQueue between your threads.
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue queue;
Producer(BlockingQueue q) { queue = q; }
public void run() {
try {
while (true) { queue.put(produce()); }
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { ... handle ...}
}
Object produce() { ... }
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue queue;
Consumer(BlockingQueue q) { queue = q; }
public void run() {
try {
while (true) { consume(queue.take()); }
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { ... handle ...}
}
void consume(Object x) { ... }
}

I found the following interesting thing. In task manager, running that infinite loop like that, would consume 17% of my CPU. Now, if I added a simple
Thread.sleep(1)
inside the loop, which is only one milisecond, the CPU use dropped to almost zero as if I was not using the program, and the response time of the program was still pretty good on average (in my case it needed to reply things fast)

Waiting for an unknown number of asynchronous tasks

I have a queue of tasks, and a thread that peek the queue once in a few seconds and if there is a task it performs it.
I have another code section (in another thread of course), that creates tasks in a loop (I can't know the number of tasks in advance from outside the loop) and insert them to the queue. The tasks contains some 'result' object, and the external thread (which created those tasks) need to wait for all the tasks to finish and finally get the result from each one of them.
The problem is that I can't pass java Semaphore\CountDownLatch etc to the result object since I don't know the number of monitors in advance.
I also can't use an Executor that uses invokeAll or wait for the Future object since the tasks are unsynchrnized (the external thread just pust the task to a queue and another thread will execute the task when he have time for this).
The only solution I've had in mind is to create some 'Inverted Semaphore' class that holds a set of results and a monitors counter. The getResult function will check if the counter == 0 and if the answer is yes will notify some lock object, and the getResult function will wait for this lock:
public class InvertedSemaphore<T> {
Set<T> resultSet;
int usages;
final Object c;
public InvertedSemaphore() {
resultSet = Collections.synchronizedSet(new HashSet<T>());
usages = 0;
c = new Object();
}
public void addResult(T result) {
resultSet.add(result);
}
public void addResults(Set<T> result) {
resultSet.addAll(result);
}
public void acquire() {
usages++;
}
public void release() {
synchronized (c) {
if (--usages == 0) {
c.notify();
}
}
}
public Set<T> getResults() {
synchronized (c) {
try {
while (usages > 0) {
c.wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return resultSet;
}
}
Each addTask method will invoke semaphore.acquire, and each of the (unsynchronized) tasks will invoke semaphore.release in the end of the task.
It sounds pretty complicated and I'm pretty sure there is a better solution for this in java concurrent library or something.
Any idea will be appriciated:)

If the tasks don't need to be processed in order, use an ExecutorCompletionService
More generally, it is not necessary to use invokeAll on an ExecutorService in order to get a Future for the result. ExecutorService#submit could be used for this purpose, or optionally, the task being created could implement Future itself, thus allowing the creator of the task to ask for the result at a later point in time.
Some code:
class MyTask {
AtomicReference<?> result = new AtomicReference<?>();
void run() {
//do stuff here
result.set(/* the result of the calculation */);
}
boolean resultReady() {
return result.get()!=null;
}
? get() {
return result.get();
}
}
... elsewhere in code
void createTasks() {
Collection<MyTask> c = new ...;
while(indeterminable condition) {
MyTask task = new MyTask();
c.add(task);
mysteryQueue.add(task);
}
while(haven't received all results) {
MyTask task = c.get(...); //or iterate or whatever
? result = task.get();
if (result!=null) {
//do stuff, probably remove the task from the collection c would be smart
}
}
}

One idea would be to use a separate queue for the results.
So you will have one blocking queue that thread A places tasks for thread B thereby having a producer-consumer approach, and when each task is completed, the result could be placed in the second result queue inverting the consumer-producer roles since now thread A that originally created the tasks will consume the result from the second queue.

You can do the following:
each producer will hold its own queue. The producer will pass a means to report to this queue to the Task itself. When the task finishes running, it will queue its result to this queue. It is beast described by some code:
class Result{}
interface IResultCallback{
void resultReady(Result r); // this is an abstraction of the queue
}
class Producer implements IResultCallback{
// the producer needs to pass itself to the constructor of the task,
// the task will only see its "resultReady" facade and will be able to report to it.
// the producer can aggragte the results at it will and execute its own computation as
// as soon it is ready
Queue<Result> results; // = init queue
#Override
public void resultReady(Result r) {
results.add(r);
if(results.size() == 9){
operate();
}
results.clear();
}
public void operate(){
// bla bla
}
}
public class Task {
IResultCallback callback;
public Task(IResultCallback callback){
this.callback = callback;
}
public void execute(){
// bla bla
Result r = null; // init result;
callback.resultReady(r);
}
}

Wait until any of Future<T> is done

I have few asynchronous tasks running and I need to wait until at least one of them is finished (in the future probably I'll need to wait util M out of N tasks are finished).
Currently they are presented as Future, so I need something like
/**
* Blocks current thread until one of specified futures is done and returns it.
*/
public static <T> Future<T> waitForAny(Collection<Future<T>> futures)
throws AllFuturesFailedException
Is there anything like this? Or anything similar, not necessary for Future. Currently I loop through collection of futures, check if one is finished, then sleep for some time and check again. This looks like not the best solution, because if I sleep for long period then unwanted delay is added, if I sleep for short period then it can affect performance.
I could try using
new CountDownLatch(1)
and decrease countdown when task is complete and do
countdown.await()
, but I found it possible only if I control Future creation. It is possible, but requires system redesign, because currently logic of tasks creation (sending Callable to ExecutorService) is separated from decision to wait for which Future. I could also override
<T> RunnableFuture<T> AbstractExecutorService.newTaskFor(Callable<T> callable)
and create custom implementation of RunnableFuture with ability to attach listener to be notified when task is finished, then attach such listener to needed tasks and use CountDownLatch, but that means I have to override newTaskFor for every ExecutorService I use - and potentially there will be implementation which do not extend AbstractExecutorService. I could also try wrapping given ExecutorService for same purpose, but then I have to decorate all methods producing Futures.
All these solutions may work but seem very unnatural. It looks like I'm missing something simple, like
WaitHandle.WaitAny(WaitHandle[] waitHandles)
in c#. Are there any well known solutions for such kind of problem?
UPDATE:
Originally I did not have access to Future creation at all, so there were no elegant solution. After redesigning system I got access to Future creation and was able to add countDownLatch.countdown() to execution process, then I can countDownLatch.await() and everything works fine.
Thanks for other answers, I did not know about ExecutorCompletionService and it indeed can be helpful in similar tasks, but in this particular case it could not be used because some Futures are created without any executor - actual task is sent to another server via network, completes remotely and completion notification is received.

simple, check out ExecutorCompletionService.

ExecutorService.invokeAny

Why not just create a results queue and wait on the queue? Or more simply, use a CompletionService since that's what it is: an ExecutorService + result queue.

This is actually pretty easy with wait() and notifyAll().
First, define a lock object. (You can use any class for this, but I like to be explicit):
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Lock {}
Next, define your worker thread. He must notify that lock object when he's finished with his processing. Note that the notify must be in a synchronized block locking on the lock object.
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Worker extends Thread {
private Lock lock_;
private long timeToSleep_;
private String name_;
public Worker(Lock lock, String name, long timeToSleep) {
lock_ = lock;
timeToSleep_ = timeToSleep;
name_ = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// do real work -- using a sleep here to simulate work
try {
sleep(timeToSleep_);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
interrupt();
}
System.out.println(name_ + " is done... notifying");
// notify whoever is waiting, in this case, the client
synchronized (lock_) {
lock_.notify();
}
}
}
Finally, you can write your client:
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Lock lock = new Lock();
Worker worker1 = new Worker(lock, "worker1", 15000);
Worker worker2 = new Worker(lock, "worker2", 10000);
Worker worker3 = new Worker(lock, "worker3", 5000);
Worker worker4 = new Worker(lock, "worker4", 20000);
boolean started = false;
int numNotifies = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
try {
if (!started) {
// need to do the start here so we grab the lock, just
// in case one of the threads is fast -- if we had done the
// starts outside the synchronized block, a fast thread could
// get to its notification *before* the client is waiting for it
worker1.start();
worker2.start();
worker3.start();
worker4.start();
started = true;
}
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
numNotifies++;
if (numNotifies == 4) {
break;
}
System.out.println("Notified!");
}
}
System.out.println("Everyone has notified me... I'm done");
}
}

As far as I know, Java has no analogous structure to the WaitHandle.WaitAny method.
It seems to me that this could be achieved through a "WaitableFuture" decorator:
public WaitableFuture<T>
extends Future<T>
{
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
WaitableFuture(CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
super();
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void doTask()
{
super.doTask();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
Though this would only work if it can be inserted before the execution code, since otherwise the execution code would not have the new doTask() method. But I really see no way of doing this without polling if you cannot somehow gain control of the Future object before execution.
Or if the future always runs in its own thread, and you can somehow get that thread. Then you could spawn a new thread to join each other thread, then handle the waiting mechanism after the join returns... This would be really ugly and would induce a lot of overhead though. And if some Future objects don't finish, you could have a lot of blocked threads depending on dead threads. If you're not careful, this could leak memory and system resources.
/**
* Extremely ugly way of implementing WaitHandle.WaitAny for Thread.Join().
*/
public static joinAny(Collection<Thread> threads, int numberToWaitFor)
{
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(numberToWaitFor);
foreach(Thread thread in threads)
{
(new Thread(new JoinThreadHelper(thread, countDownLatch))).start();
}
countDownLatch.await();
}
class JoinThreadHelper
implements Runnable
{
Thread thread;
CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
JoinThreadHelper(Thread thread, CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
this.thread = thread;
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void run()
{
this.thread.join();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}

If you can use CompletableFutures instead then there is CompletableFuture.anyOf that does what you want, just call join on the result:
CompletableFuture.anyOf(futures).join()
You can use CompletableFutures with executors by calling the CompletableFuture.supplyAsync or runAsync methods.

Since you don't care which one finishes, why not just have a single WaitHandle for all threads and wait on that? Whichever one finishes first can set the handle.

See this option:
public class WaitForAnyRedux {
private static final int POOL_SIZE = 10;
public static <T> T waitForAny(Collection<T> collection) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
List<Callable<T>> callables = new ArrayList<Callable<T>>();
for (final T t : collection) {
Callable<T> callable = Executors.callable(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}, t);
callables.add(callable);
}
BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(POOL_SIZE);
ExecutorService executorService = new ThreadPoolExecutor(POOL_SIZE, POOL_SIZE, 0, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue);
return executorService.invokeAny(callables);
}
static public void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
final List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < POOL_SIZE; i++) {
integers.add(i);
}
(new Thread() {
public void run() {
Integer notified = null;
try {
notified = waitForAny(integers);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("notified=" + notified);
}
}).start();
synchronized (integers) {
integers.wait(3000);
}
Integer randomInt = integers.get((new Random()).nextInt(POOL_SIZE));
System.out.println("Waking up " + randomInt);
synchronized (randomInt) {
randomInt.notify();
}
}
}