zydronium/google-nomulus
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/google/nomulus.git synced 2025-05-13 07:57:13 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Create an injectable LockHandler

Browse source 
We create an injectable LockHandler that just calls the static
Lock.executeWithLocks function.

I'm not sure what's the correct place to put the LockHandler. I think
model/server is only appropriate for the actual datastore lock. This is a "per request" lock, so maybe request/lock?

-----------------------------

This is the initial step in adding the "lock implicitly released on request death" feature, but it's also useful on its own - easier to test Actions when we can use a fake lock.

To keep this CL simple, we keep using the old Lock as is in most places. We just choose a single example to convert to LockHandler to showcase it. Converting all other uses will be in a subsequent CL.

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=167357564
This commit is contained in:
guyben 2017-09-01 21:32:37 -07:00 • committed by jianglai
parent 67276888d2
commit 978149e677
7 changed files with 85 additions and 17 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

1
java/google/registry/export/sheet/BUILD
View file

@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ java_library(
"//java/google/registry/model",
"//java/google/registry/request",
"//java/google/registry/request/auth",
"//java/google/registry/request/lock",
"//java/google/registry/util",
"//third_party/java/objectify:objectify-v4_1",
"@com_google_api_client",

5
java/google/registry/export/sheet/SyncRegistrarsSheetAction.java
View file

@ -30,11 +30,11 @@ import com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.TaskOptions.Method;
import com.google.common.base.Optional;
import com.google.gdata.util.ServiceException;
import google.registry.config.RegistryConfig.Config;
import google.registry.model.server.Lock;
import google.registry.request.Action;
import google.registry.request.Parameter;
import google.registry.request.Response;
import google.registry.request.auth.Auth;
import google.registry.request.lock.LockHandler;
import google.registry.util.FormattingLogger;
import google.registry.util.NonFinalForTesting;
import java.io.IOException;
@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ public class SyncRegistrarsSheetAction implements Runnable {
@Inject @Config("sheetLockTimeout") Duration timeout;
@Inject @Config("sheetRegistrarId") Optional<String> idConfig;
@Inject @Parameter("id") Optional<String> idParam;
@Inject LockHandler lockHandler;
@Inject SyncRegistrarsSheetAction() {}
@Override
@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ public class SyncRegistrarsSheetAction implements Runnable {
return null;
}
};
if (!Lock.executeWithLocks(runner, null, timeout, sheetLockName)) {
if (!lockHandler.executeWithLocks(runner, null, timeout, sheetLockName)) {
// If we fail to acquire the lock, it probably means lots of updates are happening at once, in
// which case it should be safe to not bother. The task queue definition should *not* specify
// max-concurrent-requests for this very reason.