[GitHub] [beam] jfarr commented on a change in pull request #11090: [BEAM-9470] :sdks:java:io:kinesis:test is flaky

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

jfarr commented on a change in pull request #11090: [BEAM-9470] :sdks:java:io:kinesis:test is flaky
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11090#discussion_r390700972
 
 

 ##########
 File path: sdks/java/io/kinesis/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/io/kinesis/ShardReadersPoolTest.java
 ##########
 @@ -324,10 +325,15 @@ public void shouldCallRateLimitPolicy()
       }
     }
 
+    ArgumentCaptor<List<KinesisRecord>> recordsCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(List.class);
+    verify(customRateLimitPolicy, atLeastOnce()).onSuccess(recordsCaptor.capture());
+    List<List<KinesisRecord>> capturedRecords = recordsCaptor.getAllValues();
+    assertThat(capturedRecords).contains(
+        ImmutableList.of(a, b),
+        singletonList(c),
+        singletonList(d),
+        Collections.emptyList()
+    );
     verify(customRateLimitPolicy).onThrottle(same(e));
-    verify(customRateLimitPolicy).onSuccess(eq(ImmutableList.of(a, b)));
-    verify(customRateLimitPolicy).onSuccess(eq(singletonList(c)));
-    verify(customRateLimitPolicy).onSuccess(eq(singletonList(d)));
 
 Review comment:
   @suztomo My thought is that Mockito is expecting to see these parameters in this order, which may not always be the case due to the 2 ShardReadersPool worker threads. My suggested fix is to rewrite the Mockito verifications so that they are definitely not dependent on order.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services