replace anonymous runnable class with lambda #1459
Conversation
Test Results 899 files - 1 899 suites - 1 36m 3s ⏱️ - 30m 46s For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit 605c868. ± Comparison against base commit f746493. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
elsazac
force-pushed
the
refactor_runnableToLambda
branch
from
5002bb3 to
8b937a5
Compare
| @@ -872,18 +872,14 @@ public void processEvent(VerifyEvent e) { | |||
| private void filterProposals() { | |||
| ++ fInvocationCounter; | |||
| Control control= fViewer.getTextWidget(); | |||
| control.getDisplay().asyncExec(new Runnable() { | |||
| control.getDisplay().asyncExec(() -> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not equivalent and will most likely cause bugs:
| @@ -872,18 +872,14 @@ public void processEvent(VerifyEvent e) { | |||
| private void filterProposals() { | |||
| ++ fInvocationCounter; | |||
| Control control= fViewer.getTextWidget(); | |||
| control.getDisplay().asyncExec(new Runnable() { | |||
| control.getDisplay().asyncExec(() -> { | |||
| long fCounter= fInvocationCounter; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Before, fCounter is initialized just once, when filterProposals is invoked and the Runnable is created, ie before actually running the Runnable. While with the change, the value is set at execution of the Runnable, leading to...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will moving fCounter assignment outside of the lambda solve the problem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think it would.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mickaelistria I have made that change accordingly and removed the problematic lambda. please have a look.
| @Override | ||
| public void run() { | ||
|
|
||
| if (fCounter != fInvocationCounter) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This condition not being always true (before) but being always true (after)
|
|
||
| fContextInfoPopup.getDisplay().asyncExec(new Runnable() { | ||
|
|
||
| private ContextFrame fFrame= fContextFrameStack.peek(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A similar pattern here: the frame is set once at instantiation for some reason, not on the execution. This looks like an actual intent to capture the "initial value before execution".
elsazac
force-pushed
the
refactor_runnableToLambda
branch
from
8b937a5 to
605c868
Compare
|
Thank you! |
* replace anonymous runnable class with lambda
No description provided.