Commit graph

5 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
mcilwain
00ea99960a Improve efficiency of async contact and host deletion with batching
This allows handling of N asynchronous deletion requests simultaneously instead
of just 1.  An accumulation pull queue is used for deletion requests, and the
async deletion [] is now fired off whenever that pull queue isn't empty,
and processes many tasks at once.  This doesn't particularly take more time,
because the bulk of the cost of the async delete operation is simply iterating
over all DomainBases (which has to happen regardless of how many contacts and
hosts are being deleted).

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=133169336
2016-09-19 11:47:55 -04:00
mcilwain
aa2f283f7c Convert entire project to strict lexicographical import sort ordering
-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=127234970
2016-07-13 15:59:53 -04:00
nickfelt
01698059f6 Fix flow double-init bug by removing @FlowScope on provideFlow()
See [] for details, but basically, @FlowScope causes the Flow instance produced by flowProvider.get() in FlowRunner to be the same each time it's called, which leads to the instance being re-used when a transactional retry (e.g. for a ConcurrentModificationException) causes a flow to be attempted more than once.  Flow is not meant to be re-used and certain flows fail at runtime when this happens, so the effect is that a CME now aborts most EPP requests, which is bad.

This is a bit of a hacky fix; finding a better one is tracked in []

== TESTING ==
This is very hard to test because there isn't really a clean way to trigger a CME from within a flow's execution without hardcoding in assumptions about what a given flow is doing when it runs, and we can't easily supply a custom Flow for testing while also exercising the Flow daggerization process (since this bug only appears due to the specific way that dagger constructs the Provider<Flow>).  Ideally a fix would improve the testability here as well.

For now, I've manually tested this change by pasting code into FlowRunner that explicitly throws a ConcurrentModificationException after running the flow (similar to DryRunException), but only on the first transaction attempt.  With @FlowScope on provideFlow(), this change reproduces the UnsupportedOperationException issue in many tests; once it's removed (i.e. with this CL submitted) the problem goes away.
-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=126226066
2016-07-01 13:36:15 -04:00
cgoldfeder
0d47534246 Inject flows with a nested ternary rather than a map
This is more efficient (we were constructing all the
providers and the map anew for every flow) and prettier.
-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=125479328
2016-06-27 16:29:19 -04:00
cgoldfeder
c9a16f7f11 Dagger, meet Flows. Flows, meet Dagger.
Daggerizes all of the EPP flows. This does not change anything yet
about the flows themselves, just how they are invoked, but after
this CL it's safe to @Inject things into flow classes.
-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=125382478
2016-06-27 16:26:29 -04:00