RMContainerCacheManager - decouple returned set from cache instance #1623
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
- see Hyland support case #00762774 describing a concurrent modification issue due to RMAfterInvocationProvider modifying the set returned by FilePlanServiceImpl which may be the set from the cache
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes the Hyland support case 00762774 which details a concurrent modification error in the RMAfterInvocationProvider when the
FilePlanServiceImpl.getFilePlansmethod returns the cached file plan set that is then modified at the end of theRMAfterInvocationProvider.decideoperation. When multiple RM file plan requests are handled at the same time, it can happen that one thread is currently iterating the cached file plan set in thedecideoperation while another is modifying at the end of said operation.Support won't process the support case further due to lack of an easily reproducible step-by-step guide for this error (which is impossible due to being both timing and load dependent), despite us already providing them with the in-depth analysis of the cause of the error.