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

["Dennis Balkir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Dennis Balkir updated OFBIZ-9693:
---------------------------------
    Attachment: OFBIZ-9693_org.apache.ofbiz.service.semaphore_bugfixes.patch

class ServiceSemaphore:
- removed unnecessary else
- Line 73: made the method {{release}} synchronized
- Line 177: removed {{&& beganTx}} because it cannot be null at this point


> [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
>            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
(v6.4.14#64029)