I did have an issue in my test, namely not making sure I wait for all the watches to fire.
I added a check for that now: https://gist.github.com/1961660, but still the test fails.
Amir
On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Amirhossein Kiani wrote:
> Hmm... I tried testing the idea that if I call the getData() on updated node in the watcher's
process() method I'll get the updated data.
> I created a watcher class that keeps track of the values it's receiving and in my test
I sequentially set 10000 values on the node. I do see that some times I'm getting the OLD
VALUE.
>
> I wonder if the way I'm setting the data or getting it is incorrect.
>
> Here are the main files in my test:
> https://gist.github.com/1961660
>
> You can run my test by running "mvn test" in the maven project attached.
> <test-get-data.tar.gz>
>
>
> Many thanks for your help!
> Amir
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Amirhossein Kiani <amirhkiani@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Many thanks Patrick for pointing me to the new documentation. I just found the
other one from Google somehow.
>>>
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>>> So what I think is happening is actually impossible: to do getData() on a node
and see the OLD data. in other words, I do not need to loop on a getData() to get the actual
new data after being notified about the data change.
>>> The reason that I'm saying that is that's the behavior I'm seeing in my code,
but it might be just a bug on my side...
>>
>> Sounds like. Keep in mind that there might be multiple changes btw the
>> time the notification fires and when your getData runs on the server.
>> Perhaps someone's changing it back? :-)
>>
>> Patrick
>
|
| Mime |
- Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
- Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
|