search

boostorg / unordered

Boost.org unordered module
http://boost.org/libs/unordered
Boost Software License 1.0
62 stars 55 forks source link

Feature/test interprocess concurrency #258

Closed joaquintides closed 2 months ago

joaquintides commented 2 months ago

Verifies that concurrent containers work when accessed through shared memory by different processes, including if stats are enabled (which case didn't work before).

Addresses #256.

codecov[bot] commented 2 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 98.06%. Comparing base (a166a56) to head (1a8c685).

Additional details and impacted files [![Impacted file tree graph](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=ZqRPZlJZ5N&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg)](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #258 +/- ## ======================================== Coverage 98.06% 98.06% ======================================== Files 151 152 +1 Lines 20509 20557 +48 ======================================== + Hits 20112 20160 +48 Misses 397 397 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [include/boost/unordered/detail/foa/core.hpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=include%2Fboost%2Funordered%2Fdetail%2Ffoa%2Fcore.hpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg#diff-aW5jbHVkZS9ib29zdC91bm9yZGVyZWQvZGV0YWlsL2ZvYS9jb3JlLmhwcA==) | `99.54% <ø> (ø)` | | | [...de/boost/unordered/detail/foa/cumulative\_stats.hpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=include%2Fboost%2Funordered%2Fdetail%2Ffoa%2Fcumulative_stats.hpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg#diff-aW5jbHVkZS9ib29zdC91bm9yZGVyZWQvZGV0YWlsL2ZvYS9jdW11bGF0aXZlX3N0YXRzLmhwcA==) | `95.55% <ø> (ø)` | | | [test/cfoa/interprocess\_concurrency\_tests.cpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=test%2Fcfoa%2Finterprocess_concurrency_tests.cpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg#diff-dGVzdC9jZm9hL2ludGVycHJvY2Vzc19jb25jdXJyZW5jeV90ZXN0cy5jcHA=) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | ------ [Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg). > **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg) > `Δ = absolute (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data` > Powered by [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg). Last update [a166a56...1a8c685](https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/unordered/pull/258?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=boostorg).
cmazakas commented 2 months ago

Hmm, this PR makes me wonder if we can dramatically simplify the shared memory names in the mmap_tests.

Looking at the previous test compared to this one, the old seems unideal in comparison.

joaquintides commented 2 months ago

Hmm, this PR makes me wonder if we can dramatically simplify the shared memory names in the mmap_tests.

Yes, the difference is that the old code prepends a fixed string to the randomly generated UUID. I think this is superfluous as boost::uuids::random_generator()() provides the necessary diversity.