Not using testing frameworks like MockK or Mockito seems to be becoming more and more popular. I decided to try this approach. So far so good, returning fake data is simple. But how do I verify that a function (that does not return data) has been called?
Imagine having a calss like this:
class TestToaster: Toaster {
override fun showSuccessMessage(message: String) {
throw UnsupportedOperationException()
}
override fun showSuccessMessage(message: Int) {
throw UnsupportedOperationException()
}
override fun showErrorMessage(message: String) {
throw UnsupportedOperationException()
}
override fun showErrorMessage(message: Int) {
throw UnsupportedOperationException()
}
}
With MockK I would do
verify { toaster.showSuccessMessage() }
I do not want to reinvent a wheel so decided to ask. Finding anything on Google seems to be very difficult.
Since this is a thing, I assume the point would be to totally remove mocking libraries and everything can be done without them.
The old school way to do it before any appearance of the mocking library is to manually create an implementation that is just for testing . The test implementation will store how an method is called to some internal state such that the testing codes can verify if a method is called with expected parameters by checking the related state.
For example , a very simple Toaster implementation for testing can be :
public class MockToaster implements Toaster {
public String showSuccesMessageStr ;
public Integer showSuccesMessageInt;
public String showErrorMessageStr;
public Integer showErrorMessageInt;
public void showSuccessMessage(String msg){
this.showSuccesMessageStr = msg;
}
public void showSuccessMessage(Integer msg){
this.showSuccesMessageInt = msg;
}
public void showErrorMessage(String msg){
this.showErrorMessageStr = msg;
}
public void showErrorMessage(Integer msg){
this.showErrorMessageInt = msg;
}
}
Then in your test codes , you configure the object that you want to test to use MockToaster. To verify if it does really call showSuccessMessage("foo") , you can then assert if its showSuccesMessageStr equal to foo at the end of the test.
A lot of people seem to be suggesting the very straight forward solution for this, which totally makes sense. I decided to go a bit fancy and achieve this syntax:
verify(toaster = toaster, times = 1).showErrorMessage(any<String>()).
I created simple Matchers:
inline fun <reified T> anyObject(): T {
return T::class.constructors.first().call()
}
inline fun <reified T> anyPrimitive(): T {
return when (T::class) {
Int::class -> Int.MIN_VALUE as T
Long::class -> Long.MIN_VALUE as T
Byte::class -> Byte.MIN_VALUE as T
Short::class -> Short.MIN_VALUE as T
Float::class -> Float.MIN_VALUE as T
Double::class -> Double.MIN_VALUE as T
Char::class -> Char.MIN_VALUE as T
String:: class -> "io.readian.readian.matchers.strings" as T
Boolean::class -> false as T
else -> {
throw IllegalArgumentException("Not a primitive type ${T::class}")
}
}
}
Added a map to store call count for each method to my TestToaster where the key is the name of the function and value is the count:
private var callCount: MutableMap<String, Int> = mutableMapOf()
Whenever a function gets called I increase current call count value for a method. I get current method name through reflection
val key = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + param::class.simpleName
addCall(key)
In oder to achieve the "fancy" syntax, I created inner subcalss for TestToaster and a verify function:
fun verify(toaster: Toaster , times: Int = 1): Toaster {
return TestToaster.InnerToaster(toaster, times)
}
That function sends current toaster instance to the inner subclass to create new instance and returns it. When I call a method of the subclass in my above syntax, the check happens. If the check passes, nothing happens and test is passed, if conditions not met - and exception is thrown.
To make it more general and extendable I created this interface:
interface TestCallVerifiable {
var callCount: MutableMap<String, Int>
val callParams: MutableMap<String, CallParam>
fun addCall(key: String, vararg param: Any) {
val currentCountValue = callCount.getOrDefault(key, 0)
callCount[key] = currentCountValue + 1
callParams[key] = CallParam(param.toMutableList())
}
abstract class InnerTestVerifiable(
private val outer: TestCallVerifiable,
private val times: Int = 1,
) {
protected val params: CallParam = CallParam(mutableListOf())
protected fun check(functionName: String) {
val actualTimes = getActualCallCount(functionName)
if (actualTimes != times) {
throw IllegalStateException(
"$functionName expected to be called $times, but actual was $actualTimes"
)
}
val callParams = outer.callParams.getOrDefault(functionName, CallParam(mutableListOf()))
val result = mutableListOf<Boolean>()
callParams.values.forEachIndexed { index, item ->
val actualParam = params.values[index]
if (item == params.values[index] || (item != actualParam && isAnyParams(actualParam))) {
result.add(true)
}
}
if (params.values.isNotEmpty() && !result.all { it } || result.isEmpty()) {
throw IllegalStateException(
"$functionName expected to be called with ${callParams.values}, but actual was with ${params.values}"
)
}
}
private fun isAnyParams(vararg param: Any): Boolean {
param.forEach {
if (it.isAnyPrimitive()) return true
}
return false
}
private fun getActualCallCount(functionName: String): Int {
return outer.callCount.getOrDefault(functionName, 0)
}
}
data class CallParam(val values: MutableList<Any> = mutableListOf())
}
Here is the complete class:
open class TestToaster : TestCallVerifiable, Toaster {
override var callCount: MutableMap<String, Int> = mutableMapOf()
override val callParams: MutableMap<String, TestCallVerifiable.CallParam> = mutableMapOf()
override fun showSuccessMessage(message: String) {
val key = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
addCall(key, message)
}
override fun showSuccessMessage(message: Int) {
val key = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
addCall(key, message)
}
override fun showErrorMessage(message: String) {
val key = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
addCall(key, message)
}
override fun showErrorMessage(message: Int) {
val key = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
addCall(key, message)
}
private class InnerToaster(
verifiable: TestCallVerifiable,
times: Int,
) : TestCallVerifiable.InnerTestVerifiable(
outer = verifiable,
times = times,
), Toaster {
override fun showSuccessMessage(message: String) {
params.values.add(message)
val functionName = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
check(functionName)
}
override fun showSuccessMessage(message: Int) {
params.values.add(message)
val functionName = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
check(functionName)
}
override fun showErrorMessage(message: String) {
params.values.add(message)
val functionName = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
check(functionName)
}
override fun showErrorMessage(message: Int) {
params.values.add(message)
val functionName = object {}.javaClass.enclosingMethod?.name + message::class.simpleName
check(functionName)
}
}
companion object {
fun verify(toaster: Toaster, times: Int = 1): Toaster {
return InnerToaster(toaster as TestCallVerifiable, times)
}
}
}
I have not tested this extensively and it will evolve with time, but so far it works well for me.
I also wrote an article about this on Medium: https://sermilion.medium.com/unit-testing-verify-that-a-method-was-called-without-testing-frameworks-like-mockito-or-mockk-433ef8e1aff4
I am working on two apps, in one of my app "A" i applied retrofit 2.
This was the method i used to retrieve data.
But here in on Response the data retrieved in response body can be set to activity variables and can be used outside this method without getting null values.
public void fetch_information() {
ApiInterface = ApiClient.getApiClient().create(Api.class);
Call<List<City>> call = ApiInterface.GetCities();
call.enqueue(new Callback<List<City>>() {
#Override
public void onResponse(Call<List<City>> call, Response<List<City>> response) {
citylist = new ArrayList<City>();
citylist = response.body();
cities = new String[citylist.size()];
citiesid = new String[citylist.size()];
for (int i = 0; i < citylist.size(); i++) {
cities[i] = citylist.get(i).getCityName();
citiesid[i] = citylist.get(i).getCityId();
}
city_adapter = new ArrayAdapter<String>(Pay_Payment_X.this, android.R.layout.simple_list_item_1, cities);
city_adapter.setDropDownViewResource(R.layout.spinner_dropdown_layout);
City_Spinner.setAdapter(city_adapter);
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Call<List<City>> call, Throwable t) {
Toast.makeText(getApplicationContext(), t.getMessage(), Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
}
});
}
after applying this method and on debugging this method i will retain values of varaibles "cities" and "citiesid"out side onResponse.
But applying retrofit 2 similarly on another app "B", i did the same thing for retrieving data on different URL.
ApiUtil.getServiceClass().getAllPost().enqueue(new Callback<List<ApiObject>>() {
#Override
public void onResponse(Call<List<ApiObject>> call, Response<List<ApiObject>> response) {
if (response.isSuccessful()) {
List<ApiObject> postList = response.body();
try {
for (int i = 0; i < postList.size(); i++) {
String Name = postList.get(i).getGamesName();
mGamesName.add(Name);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
Log.d(TAG, "Returned count " + postList.size());
NewAdapter adapter = new NewAdapter(getApplicationContext(), postList);
recyclerView.setAdapter(adapter);
}
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Call<List<ApiObject>> call, Throwable t) {
//showErrorMessage();
Log.d(TAG, "error loading from API");
}
});
the data is retrievable inside onResponse but outside it shows null.
So here variables are not retaining values.
Why is this happening?
the only thing came to mind is retrieving data can take time while your code lines are being read and finding null values as data has not been received yet.
Also to mention in app "A" the data retrieved is huge but in app "B" only 3 objects with string values.But still in app"A" data is retrievable.
In app 2 did this for resolving my issue.
public void doRequest( final ApiCallback callback){
ApiUtil.getServiceClass().getAllPost().enqueue(new Callback<List<ApiObject>>() {
#Override
public void onResponse(Call<List<ApiObject>> call, Response<List<ApiObject>> response) {
if (response.isSuccessful()) {
List<ApiObject> postList = response.body();
callback.onSuccess(postList);
// apobject =response.body();
if(response.isSuccessful()) {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < postList.size(); i++) {
String Name = postList.get(i).getGamesName().toString();
mGamesName.add(Name);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
Log.d(TAG, "Returned count " + postList.size());
NewAdapter adapter = new NewAdapter(getApplicationContext(), postList);
recyclerView.setAdapter(adapter);
}
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Call<List<ApiObject>> call, Throwable t) {
//showErrorMessage();
Log.d(TAG, "error loading from API");
}
});
}
pass an interface
public interface ApiCallback{
void onSuccess(List<ApiObject> result);
}
and in on Create view of activity i called this
doRequest(new ApiCallback(){
#Override
public void onSuccess(List<ApiObject> result){
//here i can set variable values
}
});
the only thing came to mind is retrieving data can take time while your code lines are being read and finding null values as data has not been received yet.
That's entirely correct. Your call is finishing after you check the values. I'm going to go on a limb here and say that it's just a coincidence that it works on one app and not in the other (if they are actually doing it the same way)
When you call callback.onSuccess(postList); doesn't seem to be right either, because you haven't checked yet for success. This means that response.body() might be null and response.errorBody() will contain the body of the error.
If you'd move callback.onSuccess inside the if this would be fixed:
if(response.isSuccessful()) {
callback.onSuccess(response.body());
try {
for (int i = 0; i < postList.size(); i++) {
String Name = postList.get(i).getGamesName().toString();
mGamesName.add(Name);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
Last but not least, inside the onSuccess method is when you can use your global variables. Maybe it's better to stop using global variables and just use the callback parameters.
I understand what livelock is, but I was wondering if anyone had a good code-based example of it? And by code-based, I do not mean "two people trying to get past each other in a corridor". If I read that again, I'll lose my lunch.
Here's a very simple Java example of livelock where a husband and wife are trying to eat soup, but only have one spoon between them. Each spouse is too polite, and will pass the spoon if the other has not yet eaten.
public class Livelock {
static class Spoon {
private Diner owner;
public Spoon(Diner d) { owner = d; }
public Diner getOwner() { return owner; }
public synchronized void setOwner(Diner d) { owner = d; }
public synchronized void use() {
System.out.printf("%s has eaten!", owner.name);
}
}
static class Diner {
private String name;
private boolean isHungry;
public Diner(String n) { name = n; isHungry = true; }
public String getName() { return name; }
public boolean isHungry() { return isHungry; }
public void eatWith(Spoon spoon, Diner spouse) {
while (isHungry) {
// Don't have the spoon, so wait patiently for spouse.
if (spoon.owner != this) {
try { Thread.sleep(1); }
catch(InterruptedException e) { continue; }
continue;
}
// If spouse is hungry, insist upon passing the spoon.
if (spouse.isHungry()) {
System.out.printf(
"%s: You eat first my darling %s!%n",
name, spouse.getName());
spoon.setOwner(spouse);
continue;
}
// Spouse wasn't hungry, so finally eat
spoon.use();
isHungry = false;
System.out.printf(
"%s: I am stuffed, my darling %s!%n",
name, spouse.getName());
spoon.setOwner(spouse);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Diner husband = new Diner("Bob");
final Diner wife = new Diner("Alice");
final Spoon s = new Spoon(husband);
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() { husband.eatWith(s, wife); }
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() { wife.eatWith(s, husband); }
}).start();
}
}
Run the program and you'll get:
Bob: You eat first my darling Alice!
Alice: You eat first my darling Bob!
Bob: You eat first my darling Alice!
Alice: You eat first my darling Bob!
Bob: You eat first my darling Alice!
Alice: You eat first my darling Bob!
...
This will go on forever if uninterrupted. This is a livelock because both Alice and Bob are repeatedly asking each other to go first in an infinite loop (hence live). In a deadlock situation, both Alice and Bob would simply be frozen waiting on each other to go first — they won't be doing anything except wait (hence dead).
Flippant comments aside, one example which is known to come up is in code which tries to detect and handle deadlock situations. If two threads detect a deadlock, and try to "step aside" for each other, without care they will end up being stuck in a loop always "stepping aside" and never managing to move forwards.
By "step aside" I mean that they would release the lock and attempt to let the other one acquire it. We might imagine the situation with two threads doing this (pseudocode):
// thread 1
getLocks12(lock1, lock2)
{
lock1.lock();
while (lock2.locked())
{
// attempt to step aside for the other thread
lock1.unlock();
wait();
lock1.lock();
}
lock2.lock();
}
// thread 2
getLocks21(lock1, lock2)
{
lock2.lock();
while (lock1.locked())
{
// attempt to step aside for the other thread
lock2.unlock();
wait();
lock2.lock();
}
lock1.lock();
}
Race conditions aside, what we have here is a situation where both threads, if they enter at the same time will end up running in the inner loop without proceeding. Obviously this is a simplified example. A naiive fix would be to put some kind of randomness in the amount of time the threads would wait.
The proper fix is to always respect the lock heirarchy. Pick an order in which you acquire the locks and stick to that. For example if both threads always acquire lock1 before lock2, then there is no possibility of deadlock.
As there is no answer marked as accepted answer, I have attempted to create live lock example;
Original program was written by me in Apr 2012 to learn various concept of multithreading. This time I have modified it to create deadlock, race condition, livelock etc.
So let's understand the problem statement first;
Cookie Maker Problem
There are some ingredient containers: ChocoPowederContainer, WheatPowderContainer. CookieMaker takes some amount of powder from ingredient containers to bake a Cookie. If a cookie maker finds a container empty it checks for another container to save time. And waits until Filler fills the required container. There is a Filler who checks container on regular interval and fills some quantity if a container needs it.
Please check the complete code on github;
Let me explain you implementation in brief.
I start Filler as daemon thread. So it'll keep filling containers on regular interval. To fill a container first it locks the container -> check if it needs some powder -> fills it -> signal all makers who are waiting for it -> unlock container.
I create CookieMaker and set that it can bake up to 8 cookies in parallel. And I start 8 threads to bake cookies.
Each maker thread creates 2 callable sub-thread to take powder from containers.
sub-thread takes a lock on a container and check if it has enough powder. If not, wait for some time. Once Filler fills the container, it takes the powder, and unlock the container.
Now it completes other activities like: making mixture and baking etc.
Let's have a look in the code:
CookieMaker.java
private Integer getMaterial(final Ingredient ingredient) throws Exception{
:
container.lock();
while (!container.getIngredient(quantity)) {
container.empty.await(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
//Thread.sleep(500); //For deadlock
}
container.unlock();
:
}
IngredientContainer.java
public boolean getIngredient(int n) throws Exception {
:
lock();
if (quantityHeld >= n) {
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(2);
quantityHeld -= n;
unlock();
return true;
}
unlock();
return false;
}
Everything runs fine until Filler is filling the containers. But if I forget to start the filler, or filler goes on unexpected leave, sub-threads keep changing their states to allow other maker to go and check the container.
I have also create a daemon ThreadTracer which keeps watch on thread states and deadlocks. This the output from console;
2016-09-12 21:31:45.065 :: [Maker_0:WAITING, Maker_1:WAITING, Maker_2:WAITING, Maker_3:WAITING, Maker_4:WAITING, Maker_5:WAITING, Maker_6:WAITING, Maker_7:WAITING, pool-7-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-7-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-2:RUNNABLE, pool-3-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING]
2016-09-12 21:31:45.065 :: [Maker_0:WAITING, Maker_1:WAITING, Maker_2:WAITING, Maker_3:WAITING, Maker_4:WAITING, Maker_5:WAITING, Maker_6:WAITING, Maker_7:WAITING, pool-7-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-7-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING]
WheatPowder Container has 0 only.
2016-09-12 21:31:45.082 :: [Maker_0:WAITING, Maker_1:WAITING, Maker_2:WAITING, Maker_3:WAITING, Maker_4:WAITING, Maker_5:WAITING, Maker_6:WAITING, Maker_7:WAITING, pool-7-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-7-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-2:RUNNABLE]
2016-09-12 21:31:45.082 :: [Maker_0:WAITING, Maker_1:WAITING, Maker_2:WAITING, Maker_3:WAITING, Maker_4:WAITING, Maker_5:WAITING, Maker_6:WAITING, Maker_7:WAITING, pool-7-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-7-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-8-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-6-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-5-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-1-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-1:TIMED_WAITING, pool-4-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-3-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING, pool-2-thread-2:TIMED_WAITING]
You'll notice that sub-threads and changing their states and waiting.
A real (albeit without exact code) example is two competing processes live locking in an attempt to correct for a SQL server deadlock, with each process using the same wait-retry algorithm for retrying. While it's the luck of timing, I have seen this happen on separate machines with similar performance characteristics in response to a message added to an EMS topic (e.g. saving an update of a single object graph more than once), and not being able to control the lock order.
A good solution in this case would be to have competing consumers (prevent duplicate processing as high up in the chain as possible by partitioning the work on unrelated objects).
A less desirable (ok, dirty-hack) solution is to break the timing bad luck (kind of force differences in processing) in advance or break it after deadlock by using different algorithms or some element of randomness. This could still have issues because its possible the lock taking order is "sticky" for each process, and this takes a certain minimum of time not accounted for in the wait-retry.
Yet another solution (at least for SQL Server) is to try a different isolation level (e.g. snapshot).
I coded up the example of 2 persons passing in a corridor. The two threads will avoid each other as soon as they realise their directions are the same.
public class LiveLock {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Object left = new Object();
Object right = new Object();
Pedestrian one = new Pedestrian(left, right, 0); //one's left is one's left
Pedestrian two = new Pedestrian(right, left, 1); //one's left is two's right, so have to swap order
one.setOther(two);
two.setOther(one);
one.start();
two.start();
}
}
class Pedestrian extends Thread {
private Object l;
private Object r;
private Pedestrian other;
private Object current;
Pedestrian (Object left, Object right, int firstDirection) {
l = left;
r = right;
if (firstDirection==0) {
current = l;
}
else {
current = r;
}
}
void setOther(Pedestrian otherP) {
other = otherP;
}
Object getDirection() {
return current;
}
Object getOppositeDirection() {
if (current.equals(l)) {
return r;
}
else {
return l;
}
}
void switchDirection() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(100);
current = getOppositeDirection();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is stepping aside.");
}
public void run() {
while (getDirection().equals(other.getDirection())) {
try {
switchDirection();
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
}
C# version of jelbourn's code:
using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace LiveLockExample
{
static class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var husband = new Diner("Bob");
var wife = new Diner("Alice");
var s = new Spoon(husband);
Task.WaitAll(
Task.Run(() => husband.EatWith(s, wife)),
Task.Run(() => wife.EatWith(s, husband))
);
}
public class Spoon
{
public Spoon(Diner diner)
{
Owner = diner;
}
public Diner Owner { get; private set; }
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]
public void SetOwner(Diner d) { Owner = d; }
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)]
public void Use()
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} has eaten!", Owner.Name);
}
}
public class Diner
{
public Diner(string n)
{
Name = n;
IsHungry = true;
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
private bool IsHungry { get; set; }
public void EatWith(Spoon spoon, Diner spouse)
{
while (IsHungry)
{
// Don't have the spoon, so wait patiently for spouse.
if (spoon.Owner != this)
{
try
{
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException e)
{
}
continue;
}
// If spouse is hungry, insist upon passing the spoon.
if (spouse.IsHungry)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}: You eat first my darling {1}!", Name, spouse.Name);
spoon.SetOwner(spouse);
continue;
}
// Spouse wasn't hungry, so finally eat
spoon.Use();
IsHungry = false;
Console.WriteLine("{0}: I am stuffed, my darling {1}!", Name, spouse.Name);
spoon.SetOwner(spouse);
}
}
}
}
}
Consider a UNIX system having 50 process slots.
Ten programs are running, each of which having to create 6 (sub)processes.
After each process has created 4 processes, the 10 original processes and the 40 new processes have exhausted the table. Each of the 10 original processes now sits in an endless loop forking and failing – which is aptly the situation of a livelock. The probability of this happening is very little but it could happen.
One example here might be using a timed tryLock to obtain more than one lock and if you can't obtain them all, back off and try again.
boolean tryLockAll(Collection<Lock> locks) {
boolean grabbedAllLocks = false;
for(int i=0; i<locks.size(); i++) {
Lock lock = locks.get(i);
if(!lock.tryLock(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
grabbedAllLocks = false;
// undo the locks I already took in reverse order
for(int j=i-1; j >= 0; j--) {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
}
I could imagine such code would be problematic as you have lots of threads colliding and waiting to obtain a set of locks. But I'm not sure this is very compelling to me as a simple example.
Python version of jelbourn's code:
import threading
import time
lock = threading.Lock()
class Spoon:
def __init__(self, diner):
self.owner = diner
def setOwner(self, diner):
with lock:
self.owner = diner
def use(self):
with lock:
"{0} has eaten".format(self.owner)
class Diner:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
self.hungry = True
def eatsWith(self, spoon, spouse):
while(self.hungry):
if self != spoon.owner:
time.sleep(1) # blocks thread, not process
continue
if spouse.hungry:
print "{0}: you eat first, {1}".format(self.name, spouse.name)
spoon.setOwner(spouse)
continue
# Spouse was not hungry, eat
spoon.use()
print "{0}: I'm stuffed, {1}".format(self.name, spouse.name)
spoon.setOwner(spouse)
def main():
husband = Diner("Bob")
wife = Diner("Alice")
spoon = Spoon(husband)
t0 = threading.Thread(target=husband.eatsWith, args=(spoon, wife))
t1 = threading.Thread(target=wife.eatsWith, args=(spoon, husband))
t0.start()
t1.start()
t0.join()
t1.join()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
I modify the answer of #jelbourn.
When one of them notices that the other is hungry, he(her) should release the spoon and wait another notify, so a livelock happens.
public class LiveLock {
static class Spoon {
Diner owner;
public String getOwnerName() {
return owner.getName();
}
public void setOwner(Diner diner) {
this.owner = diner;
}
public Spoon(Diner diner) {
this.owner = diner;
}
public void use() {
System.out.println(owner.getName() + " use this spoon and finish eat.");
}
}
static class Diner {
public Diner(boolean isHungry, String name) {
this.isHungry = isHungry;
this.name = name;
}
private boolean isHungry;
private String name;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void eatWith(Diner spouse, Spoon sharedSpoon) {
try {
synchronized (sharedSpoon) {
while (isHungry) {
while (!sharedSpoon.getOwnerName().equals(name)) {
sharedSpoon.wait();
//System.out.println("sharedSpoon belongs to" + sharedSpoon.getOwnerName())
}
if (spouse.isHungry) {
System.out.println(spouse.getName() + "is hungry,I should give it to him(her).");
sharedSpoon.setOwner(spouse);
sharedSpoon.notifyAll();
} else {
sharedSpoon.use();
sharedSpoon.setOwner(spouse);
isHungry = false;
}
Thread.sleep(500);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(name + " is interrupted.");
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Diner husband = new Diner(true, "husband");
final Diner wife = new Diner(true, "wife");
final Spoon sharedSpoon = new Spoon(wife);
Thread h = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
husband.eatWith(wife, sharedSpoon);
}
};
h.start();
Thread w = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
wife.eatWith(husband, sharedSpoon);
}
};
w.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
h.interrupt();
w.interrupt();
try {
h.join();
w.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
package concurrently.deadlock;
import static java.lang.System.out;
/* This is an example of livelock */
public class Dinner {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Spoon spoon = new Spoon();
Dish dish = new Dish();
new Thread(new Husband(spoon, dish)).start();
new Thread(new Wife(spoon, dish)).start();
}
}
class Spoon {
boolean isLocked;
}
class Dish {
boolean isLocked;
}
class Husband implements Runnable {
Spoon spoon;
Dish dish;
Husband(Spoon spoon, Dish dish) {
this.spoon = spoon;
this.dish = dish;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (spoon) {
spoon.isLocked = true;
out.println("husband get spoon");
try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
if (dish.isLocked == true) {
spoon.isLocked = false; // give away spoon
out.println("husband pass away spoon");
continue;
}
synchronized (dish) {
dish.isLocked = true;
out.println("Husband is eating!");
}
dish.isLocked = false;
}
spoon.isLocked = false;
}
}
}
class Wife implements Runnable {
Spoon spoon;
Dish dish;
Wife(Spoon spoon, Dish dish) {
this.spoon = spoon;
this.dish = dish;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (dish) {
dish.isLocked = true;
out.println("wife get dish");
try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
if (spoon.isLocked == true) {
dish.isLocked = false; // give away dish
out.println("wife pass away dish");
continue;
}
synchronized (spoon) {
spoon.isLocked = true;
out.println("Wife is eating!");
}
spoon.isLocked = false;
}
dish.isLocked = false;
}
}
}
Example:
Thread 1
top:
lock(L1);
if (try_lock(L2) != 0) {
unlock(L1);
goto top;
Thread 2
top:
lock(L2);
if (try_lock(L1) != 0) {
unlock(L2);
goto top;
The only difference is Thread 1 and Thread 2 try to acquire the locks in a different order. Livelock could happen as follows:
Thread 1 runs acquires L1, then a context switch occurs. Thread 2 runs acquires L2, then another context switch occurs. Thread 1 runs and cannot acquire L2, but before releasing L1 a context switch occurs. Thread 2 runs and cannot acquire L1, releases L2, and a context switch occurs. Thread 1 releases L1, and now we are basically back to the starting state, and in theory these steps could keep repeating forever.