[DROOLS-7489] Use standard getOption and setOption in RuleSessionConfiguration #5360
Conversation
| throw new RuntimeException( e ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand this change and actually I'd slightly prefer the more functional version that you replaced, am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see what you did and in theory I agree with this change. In practice I'm afraid that calling that getOption() method, that internally performs every time a switch table lookup, instead of accessing directly the option through a specific getter method could have a minimal, but still measurable, performance impact, especially when done on the critical path, like in some points touched by this pull request. Please change them accordingly.
| @@ -216,7 +217,7 @@ private Object[] initConsequence( KnowledgeHelper knowledgeHelper, ReteEvaluator | |||
| this.globalSuppliers = globalSuppliers.isEmpty() ? null : globalSuppliers.toArray( new GlobalSupplier[globalSuppliers.size()] ); | |||
| this.factSuppliers = factSuppliers.toArray( new TupleFactSupplier[factSuppliers.size()] ); | |||
|
|
|||
| if (!reteEvaluator.getRuleSessionConfiguration().isThreadSafe()) { | |||
| if (!reteEvaluator.getRuleSessionConfiguration().getOption(ThreadSafeOption.KEY).isThreadSafe()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mario is right. Internally we can use the accessors directly. getOption is the public api, for end users. Very occasionally I use it in internal code, because I don't have or know the class to caste it to to get the direct accessor.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have moved this into something slightly different, see if it is a viable approach. My idea is that these options should be used to create and configure objects at runtime, not rechecked during repeated executions.
pibizza
force-pushed
the
option-expansion
branch
from
4f9bae0
to
98daf4f
Compare
|
SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.
|
| @@ -89,7 +90,7 @@ public String getName() { | |||
| public void setReteEvaluator(ReteEvaluator reteEvaluator) { | |||
| this.reteEvaluator = reteEvaluator; | |||
| // workingMemory can be null during deserialization | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the reteEvaluator can never be null, and that's why you removed the null check below, than you should also delete this comment.
|
Closing this pull request. I discussed with @mariofusco and this needs to be done in a different way. |
This PR is meant to replace custom methods for configuration options with standard getOption and setOption.
JIRA: (please edit the JIRA link if it exists)
DROOLS-7489
How to replicate CI configuration locally?
Build Chain tool does "simple" maven build(s), the builds are just Maven commands, but because the repositories relates and depends on each other and any change in API or class method could affect several of those repositories there is a need to use build-chain tool to handle cross repository builds and be sure that we always use latest version of the code for each repository.
build-chain tool is a build tool which can be used on command line locally or in Github Actions workflow(s), in case you need to change multiple repositories and send multiple dependent pull requests related with a change you can easily reproduce the same build by executing it on Github hosted environment or locally in your development environment. See local execution details to get more information about it.
How to retest this PR or trigger a specific build:
for pull request checks
Please add comment: Jenkins retest this
for a specific pull request check
Please add comment: Jenkins (re)run [drools|kogito-runtimes|kogito-apps|kogito-examples] tests
for a full downstream build
run_fdba compile downstream build please add comment: Jenkins run cdb
a full production downstream build please add comment: Jenkins execute product fdb
an upstream build please add comment: Jenkins run upstream
for quarkus branch checks
Run checks against Quarkus current used branch
Please add comment: Jenkins run quarkus-branch
for a quarkus branch specific check
Run checks against Quarkus current used branch
Please add comment: Jenkins (re)run [drools|kogito-runtimes|kogito-apps|kogito-examples] quarkus-branch
for quarkus main checks
Run checks against Quarkus main branch
Please add comment: Jenkins run quarkus-main
for a specific quarkus main check
Run checks against Quarkus main branch
Please add comment: Jenkins (re)run [drools|kogito-runtimes|kogito-apps|kogito-examples] quarkus-main
for quarkus lts checks
Run checks against Quarkus lts branch
Please add comment: Jenkins run quarkus-lts
for a specific quarkus lts check
Run checks against Quarkus lts branch
Please add comment: Jenkins (re)run [drools|kogito-runtimes|kogito-apps|kogito-examples] quarkus-lts
for native checks
Run native checks
Please add comment: Jenkins run native
for a specific native check
Run native checks
Please add comment: Jenkins (re)run [drools|kogito-runtimes|kogito-apps|kogito-examples] native
for native lts checks
Run native checks against quarkus lts branch
Please add comment: Jenkins run native-lts
for a specific native lts check
Run native checks against quarkus lts branch
Please add comment: Jenkins (re)run [drools|kogito-runtimes|kogito-apps|kogito-examples] native-lts
How to backport a pull request to a different branch?
In order to automatically create a backporting pull request please add one or more labels having the following format
backport-<branch-name>, where<branch-name>is the name of the branch where the pull request must be backported to (e.g.,backport-7.67.xto backport the original PR to the7.67.xbranch).Once the original pull request is successfully merged, the automated action will create one backporting pull request per each label (with the previous format) that has been added.
If something goes wrong, the author will be notified and at this point a manual backporting is needed.