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

BlockingOperatorNextTest.testSingleSourceManyIterators fix #1775

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 18, 2014

Conversation

akarnokd
Copy link
Member

@benjchristensen
Copy link
Member

Should we change this to use TestScheduler, or would that defeat the purpose of the test?

I'm fine with this as an incremental change, but it is still using concurrency and time, hence wondering if we can solve this with TestScheduler.

benjchristensen added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2014
BlockingOperatorNextTest.testSingleSourceManyIterators fix
@benjchristensen benjchristensen merged commit a1aca70 into ReactiveX:1.x Oct 18, 2014
@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

You can't use a single threaded approach here because the hasNext() signals an interest and blocks. If the source emits while there is no interest, the value is dropped. This is why it needs to run on at least 2 threads and delicately time event emission with consumption.

@akarnokd akarnokd deleted the BlockingOperatorNextTestFix branch November 17, 2014 17:57
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.

2 participants