[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-9693) [FB] Package org.apache.ofbiz.service.semaphore

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-9693) [FB] Package org.apache.ofbiz.service.semaphore

JIRA jira@apache.org

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16202753#comment-16202753 ]

Michael Brohl commented on OFBIZ-9693:

Hi Dennis,

the tests are failing after applying this patch, please check.

> [FB] Package org.apache.ofbiz.service.semaphore
> -----------------------------------------------
>                 Key: OFBIZ-9693
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9693
>             Project: OFBiz
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: framework
>            Reporter: Dennis Balkir
>            Assignee: Michael Brohl
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: OFBIZ-9693_org.apache.ofbiz.service.semaphore_bugfixes.patch
> - ServiceSemaphore.java:77, IS2_INCONSISTENT_SYNC
> IS: Inconsistent synchronization of org.apache.ofbiz.service.semaphore.ServiceSemaphore.lock; locked 40% of time
> The fields of this class appear to be accessed inconsistently with respect to synchronization.  This bug report indicates that the bug pattern detector judged that
> The class contains a mix of locked and unlocked accesses,
> The class is not annotated as javax.annotation.concurrent.NotThreadSafe,
> At least one locked access was performed by one of the class's own methods, and
> The number of unsynchronized field accesses (reads and writes) was no more than one third of all accesses, with writes being weighed twice as high as reads
> A typical bug matching this bug pattern is forgetting to synchronize one of the methods in a class that is intended to be thread-safe.
> You can select the nodes labeled "Unsynchronized access" to show the code locations where the detector believed that a field was accessed without synchronization.
> Note that there are various sources of inaccuracy in this detector; for example, the detector cannot statically detect all situations in which a lock is held.  Also, even when the detector is accurate in distinguishing locked vs. unlocked accesses, the code in question may still be correct.
> - ServiceSemaphore.java:176, UC_USELESS_CONDITION
> Condition has no effect
> This condition always produces the same result as the value of the involved variable was narrowed before. Probably something else was meant or condition can be removed.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA