This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 29, 2023. It is now read-only.
ID with less risk of collision #206
Closed
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
mp911de
suggested changes
Sep 2, 2019
src/test/java/biz/paluch/logging/gelf/intern/GelfMessageUnitTests.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Tests change to use AssertJ.
waldeinburg
force-pushed
the
feature/id-collision
branch
from
5eae7eb to
d65ecc3
Compare
mp911de
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2019
mp911de
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2019
mp911de
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2019
mp911de
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2019
|
Thanks a lot. That's merged and polished now. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Make sure that:
The current implementation of message ID generation seems prone to collisions in environments that produce lots of log messages very fast.
The considerations behind the implementation is documented in a rather lengthy comment. I can move the comment to the PR thread and delete it, if you like.
I took the liberty of not using assertThat() like the rest of the unit test but rather assertEquals() and assertArrayEquals(). Especially the latter will produce much more useful information in case of errors.