Clean up some random number generation related to jitter #2888
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Motivation: Many locations where we have a notion of jitter require the jitter to be non-zero. This is because we use `ThreadLocalRandom.nextLong(lower, upper)` where with a zero jitter the bounds are the same and we get an IAE. Modifications: - Add 1 to the upper bound most of our usages of `.nextLong(l,u)` to account for the non-inclusive upper bound.
bryce-anderson
requested review from
chrisvest,
daschl,
mgodave,
tkountis and
idelpivnitskiy
bryce-anderson
changed the title
daschl
reviewed
Apr 3, 2024
servicetalk-utils-internal/src/main/java/io/servicetalk/utils/internal/RandomUtils.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
servicetalk-utils-internal/src/main/java/io/servicetalk/utils/internal/RandomUtils.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
servicetalk-loadbalancer/src/main/java/io/servicetalk/loadbalancer/RoundRobinLoadBalancer.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...loadbalancer-experimental/src/main/java/io/servicetalk/loadbalancer/DefaultLoadBalancer.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...k-dns-discovery-netty/src/main/java/io/servicetalk/dns/discovery/netty/DefaultDnsClient.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
daschl
reviewed
Apr 3, 2024
servicetalk-utils-internal/src/test/java/io/servicetalk/utils/internal/RandomUtilsTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
daschl
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2024
bryce-anderson
added a commit
to bryce-anderson/servicetalk
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2024
Motivation: In apple#2888 we made it possible to have a zero length jitter but in a couple places we continue to assert the jitter is positive despite it being allowed lower. Modifications: - Fix a couple examples of this. Result: More jitters are allowed to be 0.
bryce-anderson
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2024
Motivation: In #2888 we made it possible to have a zero length jitter but in a couple places we continue to assert the jitter is positive despite it being allowed lower. Modifications: - Fix a couple examples of this. Result: More jitters are allowed to be 0.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation:
Many locations where we have a notion of jitter we require the
jitter to be non-zero. This is because we use
ThreadLocalRandom.nextLong(lower, upper)where with a zerojitter the bounds are the same and we get an IAE.
Modifications:
.nextLong(l,u)to account for the non-inclusive upper bound.