When occupant One waits for occupant Two to join the room, One should register the corresponding listener _before_ Two joins.
Without this, a race conditions occurs, where Two could have joined the room before One registered the listener, thus missing the event.
An optional configuration option for the Smack Integration Test framework has been added that allows one to bypass DNS when resolving a host for the XMPP domain that is the subject of the test.
The `host` option can be used with IP addresses (eg: `-Dsinttest.host=127.0.0.1`) and DNS names (eg: `-Dsinttest.host=example.org`).
When Smack requests a subject change of a MUC, an error returned by
the server (eg: 'forbidden') should be propagated (as suggested by the
pre-existing javadoc).
Reported-by: Guus der Kinderen <guus@goodbytes.nl>
Instead of Stanza, use StanzaView as constructor parameter type of
StanzaIdFilter. Even though StanzaView also includes builders, the
Stanza ID is even immutable in builders.
This tests reliably fails, not only for me. I suspect that it is
related to the order of events checked by this tests, that can not be
reliably tested, even with sync listeners.
It is also is primarily a test for server behavior.
In order to be able to identify potential room leaks, use unique rooms
names for the two integration tests. Also destroy the room in
mucJoinSemiAnonymousRoomReceivedByNonModeratorTest().
Only declare the body of the participant listeners once. And increase
the try block, to account, for example, for
participantOneSeesTwoEnter.waitForResult() throwing.
MUCUser.getStatus() returns a set, checking if a particular MUC status
number is set should be done via a simple and efficient set operation
and not by resorting to using Java's stream API.
This method only had one call site and using such "helper" methods has
the drawback that it is not immediatly obvious what it does when
reading the integration test code. Therefore, we better inline it.
When the incoming unavailable presence is signalling a nickname
change (303), then do not invoke userHasLeft(), because the user
actually does not leave but instead just changes its nickname.
Note that this would also have had fixed SMACK-942, as it would
resolve the deadlock. However, using a dedicated lock for
changeNickname() still seems sensible, and if its just to avoid a bit
of lock contention.
What this also fixes is that a MultiUserChat does no longer invoke its
listener-based callbacks after a nickname change, as previously, after
a nickname change, the userHasLeft() would have been invoked, which
tears down the listeners. This issue was found with
MultiUserChatOccupantIntegrationTest.mucChangeNicknameInformationTest().
Using this method used to result in a deadlock, as shown by these two threads
"main" #1 prio=5 os_prio=0 cpu=926.39ms elapsed=21.00s tid=0x00007f463802c800 nid=0x5a691 in Object.wait() [0x00007f463f323000]
java.lang.Thread.State: TIMED_WAITING (on object monitor)
at java.lang.Object.wait(java.base@11.0.23/Native Method)
- waiting on <0x0000000622e82fd8> (a org.jivesoftware.smack.StanzaCollector)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.StanzaCollector.nextResult(StanzaCollector.java:206)
- waiting to re-lock in wait() <0x0000000622e82fd8> (a org.jivesoftware.smack.StanzaCollector)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.StanzaCollector.nextResultOrThrow(StanzaCollector.java:270)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.StanzaCollector.nextResultOrThrow(StanzaCollector.java:228)
at org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChat.changeNickname(MultiUserChat.java:1314)
- locked <0x0000000622e19700> (a org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChat)
at org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChatOccupantIntegrationTest.mucChangeNicknameInformationTest(MultiUserChatOccupantIntegrationTest.java:981)
at jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(java.base@11.0.23/Native Method)
at jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(java.base@11.0.23/NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(java.base@11.0.23/DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(java.base@11.0.23/Method.java:566)
at org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework.lambda$runTests$0(SmackIntegrationTestFramework.java:476)
at org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework$$Lambda$141/0x000000084026e040.execute(Unknown Source)
at org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework.runConcreteTest(SmackIntegrationTestFramework.java:551)
at org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework$PreparedTest.run(SmackIntegrationTestFramework.java:759)
at org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework.runTests(SmackIntegrationTestFramework.java:539)
at org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework.run(SmackIntegrationTestFramework.java:277)
- locked <0x000000062d191318> (a org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework)
at
org.igniterealtime.smack.inttest.SmackIntegrationTestFramework.main(SmackIntegrationTestFramework.java:115)
"Smack Cached Executor" #19 daemon prio=5 os_prio=0 cpu=7.85ms elapsed=20.48s tid=0x00007f4638a42800 nid=0x5a6b2 waiting for monitor entry [0x00007f46023fe000]
java.lang.Thread.State: BLOCKED (on object monitor)
at org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChat.userHasLeft(MultiUserChat.java:2281)
- waiting to lock <0x0000000622e19700> (a org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChat)
at org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChat.access$800(MultiUserChat.java:117)
at org.jivesoftware.smackx.muc.MultiUserChat$3.processStanza(MultiUserChat.java:263)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.AbstractXMPPConnection.lambda$invokeStanzaCollectorsAndNotifyRecvListeners$8(AbstractXMPPConnection.java:1654)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.AbstractXMPPConnection$$Lambda$127/0x000000084022f440.run(Unknown Source)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.AbstractXMPPConnection$10.run(AbstractXMPPConnection.java:2213)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(java.base@11.0.23/ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(java.base@11.0.23/ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628)
at java.lang.Thread.run(java.base@11.0.23/Thread.java:829)
The changeNickname() method was synchronized and is userHasLeft(),
this caused a deadlock since changeNickname() awaits the presence that
is send as result of the nickname change. But this presence is also
processed in a listener which invokes userHasLeft(). However, this
invocation blocks as userHasLeft() is waiting on the montior currently
hold by the thread invoking changeNickname().
To fix this, we change changeNickname() to not take the MultiUserChat
monitor, but instead use a dedicate lock.
Fixes SMACK-942.
When comparing SINT-configuration to annotations, a bit of normalization occurs, to ensure that common variations in denoting a specification are detected to be equal to each-other.
The dash (`-`) character is commonly used when referencing a specification (eg: `XEP-0001`).
This commit ensures that usage of a dash (`-`) character is included in the normalization process, making `XEP 0001`, `XEP0001` and `XEP-0001` all to be identified as the same reference.
Some specifications are versioned. XEPs, for example, typically are. It is useful to annotate an implementation with the specific version of the specification that is being tested.
The default set of packages that is scanned for integration tests are referencing jivesoftware. This commit adds igniterealtime-oriented package names.
The implementation of the test that is being removed depends on a server
characteristic that will cause a loop of presence stanzas (which obviously is
bad). A RFC3921-compliant client can send an 'acknowledgement' after receiving
a presence 'subscribed' stanza, in the form of a presence 'subscribe' stanza.
See section 8.2 of RFC3921.
When a server implementation does not ignore this acknowledgement, the domain
of the recipient MUST (RFC6121 section 3.1.3) respond with a 'subscribed' on
behalf of the recipient (which is what the now removed test was verifying).
This can trigger the RFC3921-compliant sender to again receive 'subscribed',
that it again can acknowledge, which causes a loop.
To test RFC6121, the subscription state of the recipient must somehow be
modified to reflect a different state than that of the initiator. I'm not sure
if that is feasible with the SINT framework.
