[CHA-RC1][ECO-5101] Implement Async Room Get + Release #56
Conversation
added basic sandbox setup for simple happy-path testing
This implementation doesn’t fully follow the spec; it omits all points that reference the room lifecycle state
Set default room status to Initialized, updated tests accordingly.
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across various files in the chat-android project. Key modifications include the addition of a Ktor client dependency in the build configuration, new error codes, updates to messaging and presence handling to improve error management and flexibility, and the transition of room management methods to asynchronous operations. Additionally, several test files have been added or modified to ensure the reliability of the new features and changes, including room lifecycle management and presence functionality. Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Warning Rate limit exceeded@sacOO7 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 14 minutes and 12 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
# Conflicts: # chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Presence.kt # chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt # chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt
…roomOptions, Added validations for the same
sacOO7
force-pushed
the
feature/rooms-async-get
branch
from
958389a to
a3d7bb4
Compare
sacOO7
force-pushed
the
feature/rooms-async-get
branch
from
920d78e to
1fd7314
Compare
sacOO7
force-pushed
the
feature/rooms-async-get
branch
from
1fd7314 to
dcc9538
Compare
should only be called from Rooms interface
sacOO7
changed the title
sacOO7
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 21
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (48)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/SandboxTest.kt (2)
10-18: Consider adding tearDown method for cleanupWhile the setup is well-structured, consider adding a
@Afterteardown method to ensure proper cleanup of sandbox resources after each test.+ @After + fun tearDown() = runTest { + sandbox.cleanup() // Assuming cleanup method exists + }
1-40: Consider restructuring tests for better async testing patternsThe current test implementation could benefit from:
- A base test class for common sandbox setup/teardown logic
- Helper functions for common async operations
- Test categories for different presence scenarios
- Proper documentation of test prerequisites and assumptions
Consider implementing a structure like this:
abstract class BaseSandboxTest { protected lateinit var sandbox: Sandbox @Before fun setUp() = runTest { sandbox = Sandbox.createInstance() } @After fun tearDown() = runTest { sandbox.cleanup() } protected suspend fun createAndAttachRoom(chatClient: ChatClient): Room { val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) room.attach().await() return room } } class SandboxPresenceTest : BaseSandboxTest() { // Current test methods would go here }chat-android/build.gradle.kts (1)
53-53: Document the purpose of Ktor client in testsConsider adding a comment explaining why Ktor client is needed for testing async operations. This will help other developers understand its role in testing the new async room management features.
+ // Ktor client for testing async HTTP interactions in room management operations testImplementation(libs.bundles.ktor.client)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Occupancy.kt (1)
Unimplemented methods need to be addressed
The review comment is correct. The
get()andsubscribe()methods inDefaultOccupancyclass are marked withTODOand remain unimplemented. This is particularly important because:
- The class is actively being used as shown by
DefaultOccupancyinstantiation in the Room implementation- These methods are core async operations that are part of the public API
- The methods are required for the occupancy feature to work as expected
Specific locations that need implementation:
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Occupancy.kt:78:get()methodchat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Occupancy.kt:74:subscribe()method🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
77-83: Implementation required for core async operationsThe PR objectives specifically mention implementing async room operations, but these core methods remain unimplemented. This appears to be incomplete work that should be addressed as part of this PR.
Let's verify if there are any existing implementations in other branches or files:
Let me search for more context about these methods and their implementations in the codebase.
Let me check the test files and related implementations to understand if this is part of a planned implementation or if there are any test cases expecting these methods to be implemented.
Let me check the DefaultOccupancy implementation since it's the concrete class being used.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any existing implementations of these methods ast-grep --pattern 'override suspend fun get(): OccupancyEvent { $$$ }' ast-grep --pattern 'override fun subscribe(listener: Occupancy.Listener): Subscription { $$$ }'Length of output: 723
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Occupancy interface definition and any other implementations ast-grep --pattern 'interface Occupancy { $$$ }' # Search for any test implementations or related files rg -l "Occupancy" --type kotlin # Check if this is part of a work in progress branch git branch --show-currentLength of output: 641
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check test files for any expectations of these methods rg -A 5 "Occupancy" chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/ChatApiTest.kt # Check Room implementation for occupancy usage rg -A 5 "Occupancy" chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt # Check if there are any pending TODOs related to occupancy rg "TODO.*[Oo]ccupancy" --type kotlinLength of output: 1313
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check DefaultOccupancy implementation rg -B 5 -A 10 "class DefaultOccupancy" --type kotlin # Check for any related test files fd "Occupancy.*Test" --type f # Check PR description or related issues git show --name-only HEADLength of output: 1760
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/ErrorCodes.kt (1)
82-86: Consider reordering error codes sequentially.While the new error code and its documentation are clear, its placement between
102_103and102_104breaks the sequential ordering. Consider moving it after102_105to maintain a consistent sequence, making the code more maintainable and easier to scan.Apply this diff to reorder the error codes:
*/ RoomIsReleased(102_103), /** * Cannot perform operation because the previous operation failed. */ PreviousOperationFailed(102_104), /** * An unknown error has happened in the room lifecycle. */ RoomLifecycleError(102_105), + /** + * Room was released before the operation could complete. + */ + RoomReleasedBeforeOperationCompleted(102_106), + /** * The request cannot be understood */ BadRequest(40_000), - - /** - * Room was released before the operation could complete. - */ - RoomReleasedBeforeOperationCompleted(102_106),chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomOptions.kt (2)
31-42: Reconsider default enabling of all featuresThe current implementation enables all features by default, which contradicts the objective from Issue #45 to initialize rooms based on provided
RoomOptions. This could lead to unnecessary resource usage when features aren't needed.Consider making the default configuration more conservative by:
- Either removing the default companion object entirely to force explicit feature selection
- Or providing null defaults to ensure features are only initialized when explicitly requested
- companion object { - val default = RoomOptions( - typing = TypingOptions(), - presence = PresenceOptions(), - reactions = RoomReactionsOptions, - occupancy = OccupancyOptions, - ) - }
88-98: Consider additional validation rulesWhile the timeout validation is good, consider adding more comprehensive validation rules:
fun RoomOptions.validateRoomOptions() { typing?.let { if (typing.timeoutMs <= 0) { throw ablyException("Typing timeout must be greater than 0", ErrorCodes.InvalidRequestBody) } } + presence?.let { + // Validate presence configuration + if (!presence.enter && presence.subscribe) { + throw ablyException( + "Invalid presence configuration: Cannot subscribe without enter capability", + ErrorCodes.InvalidRequestBody + ) + } + } }chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Typing.kt (1)
Line range hint
92-108: Implementation needed for core typing functionality.The core typing functionality methods are currently marked with TODO. These methods are essential for the typing indicators feature to work:
subscribe(): For listening to typing eventsget(): For retrieving current typersstart(): For indicating user started typingstop(): For indicating user stopped typingWould you like me to help implement these methods based on the specifications from the chat-js reference implementation mentioned in the PR objectives?
gradle/libs.versions.toml (1)
62-62: Consider using a version reference for consistencyThe android-kotlin plugin version is directly specified as "2.0.21" while other plugins use version references. Consider moving this to the versions section for consistent version management:
[versions] +android-kotlin = "2.0.21" [plugins] -android-kotlin = { id = "org.jetbrains.kotlin.android", version = "2.0.21" } +android-kotlin = { id = "org.jetbrains.kotlin.android", version.ref = "android-kotlin" }example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/ui/PresencePopup.kt (2)
75-106: Improve action handling and user feedbackThe presence actions lack error handling and user feedback. Consider extracting common functionality and adding proper error handling.
Here's a suggested improvement:
@Composable private fun PresenceActionButton( onClick: suspend () -> Unit, text: String, modifier: Modifier = Modifier ) { var isLoading by remember { mutableStateOf(false) } Button( onClick = { coroutineScope.launch { isLoading = true try { onClick() } catch (e: Exception) { Log.e("PresencePopup", "Failed to perform action: $text", e) // Show error message to user } finally { isLoading = false } } }, enabled = !isLoading, modifier = modifier ) { if (isLoading) { CircularProgressIndicator(modifier = Modifier.size(16.dp)) } else { Text(text) } } }Usage:
-Button(onClick = { - coroutineScope.launch { - presence.enter( - JsonObject().apply { - addProperty("status", "online") - }, - ) - } -}) { - Text("Join") -} +PresenceActionButton( + onClick = { + presence.enter(JsonObject().apply { + addProperty("status", "online") + }) + }, + text = "Join" +)
31-110: Consider architectural improvementsThe current implementation could benefit from better separation of concerns and type safety:
- Extract presence management logic into a dedicated ViewModel
- Create type-safe models for presence data instead of using raw JsonObject
- Consider making room ID configurable instead of using a hardcoded value
Example ViewModel approach:
data class PresenceState( val members: List<Member> = emptyList(), val isLoading: Boolean = false, val error: String? = null ) data class Member( val clientId: String, val status: Status ) enum class Status { ONLINE, AWAY, OFFLINE } class PresenceViewModel( private val chatClient: ChatClient, private val roomId: String ) : ViewModel() { private val _state = MutableStateFlow(PresenceState()) val state = _state.asStateFlow() // ... implement presence management logic }chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/ConfigureRoomOptionsTest.kt (2)
15-21: Consider enhancing documentation with error scenarios.While the documentation clearly explains the purpose, it would be helpful to include information about the expected error scenarios (40000 and 40001) that are being tested.
/** * Chat rooms are configurable, so as to enable or disable certain features. * When requesting a room, options as to which features should be enabled, and * the configuration they should take, must be provided + * + * Error scenarios: + * - 40001: Thrown when invalid typing timeout is provided + * - 40000: Thrown when attempting to access disabled features * Spec: CHA-RC2 */
23-40: Consider adding edge cases for timeout validation.The test covers basic positive and negative scenarios, but could be enhanced with additional edge cases.
Consider adding tests for:
- Zero timeout value
- Maximum allowed timeout value
- Boundary values
Example addition:
// Test zero timeout val zeroTimeoutException = assertThrows(AblyException::class.java) { DefaultRoom("1234", RoomOptions(typing = TypingOptions(timeoutMs = 0)), mockRealtimeClient, chatApi, null) } Assert.assertEquals("Typing timeout must be greater than 0", zeroTimeoutException.errorInfo.message) // Test maximum timeout val maxTimeout = Long.MAX_VALUE val roomWithMaxTimeout = DefaultRoom("1234", RoomOptions(typing = TypingOptions(timeoutMs = maxTimeout)), mockRealtimeClient, chatApi, null) Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Initialized, roomWithMaxTimeout.status)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/PrecedenceTest.kt (1)
Line range hint
97-116: Consider enhancing test assertions for robustness.While the test effectively verifies the operation precedence and status transitions, consider adding these assertions for increased robustness:
- Verify the order of operations using
verifyOrder- Assert the previous status in each status change
- Add timeout assertions for operation completion
Example enhancement:
+ verifyOrder { + roomLifecycle["doRetry"](any<ContributesToRoomLifecycle>()) + roomLifecycle invokeNoArgs "doAttach" + roomLifecycle invokeNoArgs "releaseChannels" + } + // Verify status transitions include correct previous states + Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Initial, roomStatusChanges[0].previous) + Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attaching, roomStatusChanges[1].previous)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/PresenceTest.kt (3)
19-31: LGTM! Consider adding class-level documentation.The test setup is well-structured with appropriate use of spyk and relaxed mocks. Consider adding class-level KDoc to describe the test coverage and relationship with
DefaultPresence.Add documentation like:
/** * Unit tests for [DefaultPresence] focusing on presence message transformation * and event handling as specified in CHA-PR2a. */
33-67: Consider improving test method name for clarity.The test implementation is solid with good async handling and comprehensive assertions. However, the test name could be more specific about the scenario being tested.
Consider renaming to:
-fun `should transform PresenceMessage into Chat's PresenceEvent if there is no data`() +fun `should transform PresenceMessage with null data into PresenceEvent with null data`()
69-104: Consider reducing test setup duplication.The test implementation is correct, but there's significant setup code duplication across test methods.
Consider extracting common setup into a helper method:
private suspend fun setupPresenceSubscriptionTest(): Pair<PresenceListener, DeferredValue<PresenceEvent>> { val presenceListenerSlot = slot<PresenceListener>() every { pubSubPresence.subscribe(capture(presenceListenerSlot)) } returns Unit val deferredValue = DeferredValue<PresenceEvent>() presence.subscribe { deferredValue.completeWith(it) } return Pair(presenceListenerSlot.captured, deferredValue) }chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt (2)
Line range hint
8-179: Consider documenting valid state transitions.While each state is well-documented with specifications (CHA-RS1x), it would be helpful to document the valid state transitions to prevent invalid state changes. Consider adding a state transition diagram or table in the documentation.
For example:
/** * Valid state transitions: * - Initialized -> Attaching * - Attaching -> Attached | Failed | Suspended * - Attached -> Detaching | Failed | Suspended * - Detaching -> Detached | Failed * - Detached -> Attaching | Releasing * - Suspended -> Attaching * - Failed -> Attaching * - Releasing -> Released * - Released (terminal state) */
Line range hint
208-220: Consider validating state transitions in setStatus.The
setStatusmethod currently allows any state transition. Consider adding validation to ensure only valid state transitions are allowed:internal fun setStatus(status: RoomStatus, error: ErrorInfo? = null) { + if (!isValidTransition(_status, status)) { + _logger?.e(TAG, "Invalid state transition from ${_status} to ${status}") + return + } val change = RoomStatusChange(status, _status, error) _status = change.current _error = change.error internalEmitter.emit(change.current, change) externalEmitter.emit(change.current, change) } +private fun isValidTransition(from: RoomStatus, to: RoomStatus): Boolean { + return when (from) { + RoomStatus.Initialized -> to == RoomStatus.Attaching + RoomStatus.Attaching -> setOf( + RoomStatus.Attached, + RoomStatus.Failed, + RoomStatus.Suspended + ).contains(to) + // Add other state transitions... + else -> false + } +}chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt (2)
68-114: Consider standardizing coroutine patterns across all presence operations.The implementation looks good, but there are some suggestions for consistency and robustness:
- Consider using
suspendCancellableCoroutinefor get operations to match other presence operations- Add cancellation handling to ensure cleanup of resources
Example implementation for get operations:
-suspend fun PubSubPresence.getCoroutine(param: Param) = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) { - get(param) -} +suspend fun PubSubPresence.getCoroutine(param: Param) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> + continuation.invokeOnCancellation { + // Add cleanup if needed + } + withContext(Dispatchers.IO) { + try { + val result = get(param) + continuation.resume(result) + } catch (e: Exception) { + continuation.resumeWithException(e) + } + } +}
199-209: Add KDoc documentation for the ablyException utility.The implementation is clean, but would benefit from documentation explaining:
- The purpose of the utility function
- Parameter descriptions
- Example usage
Example documentation:
/** * Creates an AblyException with the specified error details. * * @param errorMessage The human-readable error message * @param code The error code from ErrorCodes enum * @param statusCode The HTTP status code (defaults to 400 Bad Request) * @param cause Optional underlying cause of the error * @return An AblyException instance with the specified error details * * @example * ``` * throw ablyException( * "Room already exists", * ErrorCodes.RoomAlreadyExists * ) * ``` */chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomReactions.kt (1)
Line range hint
169-171: Consider enhancing the release implementation.The current release implementation could benefit from additional safeguards:
- Track release state to prevent multiple releases
- Handle in-progress operations
- Clean up existing subscriptions before release
Consider implementing these improvements:
+ private val isReleased = AtomicBoolean(false) + override fun release() { + if (!isReleased.compareAndSet(false, true)) { + return + } + + // Clean up existing subscriptions + channel.unsubscribe() + realtimeChannels.release(channel.name) }chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomGetTest.kt (2)
27-30: Enhance class-level documentation.Consider adding more descriptive documentation explaining the purpose of these tests and what "CHA-RC1f" specification covers. This will help other developers understand the test suite's scope and requirements.
32-40: Consider adding assertions for initial room state.The test verifies room ID and options but could be enhanced by asserting the initial state of the room (e.g., RoomStatus.Active).
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt (1)
231-234: Consider extracting the delay value as a constantThe retry delay value should be extracted as a named constant for better maintainability and clarity.
+ private companion object { + private const val DETACH_RETRY_DELAY_MS = 250L + }chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt (2)
17-22: Encapsulate the HTTP client within theSandboxclassCurrently,
clientis a top-level variable, which can lead to unintended sharing or conflicts in a larger test suite, especially if tests are run in parallel. Encapsulating theHttpClientwithin theSandboxclass or making it a private member improves modularity and thread safety.Apply this diff to encapsulate the
client:-val client = HttpClient(CIO) { - install(HttpRequestRetry) { - retryOnServerErrors(maxRetries = 4) - exponentialDelay() - } -} +class Sandbox private constructor(val appId: String, val apiKey: String) { + private val client = HttpClient(CIO) { + install(HttpRequestRetry) { + retryOnServerErrors(maxRetries = 4) + exponentialDelay() + } + } companion object {
56-61: Consider embeddingtest-app-setup.jsonas a local resourceFetching the JSON from a remote URL during tests can lead to unreliable tests due to network issues or external changes. Embedding
test-app-setup.jsonas a local resource improves test reliability and reduces dependency on external systems.Apply this diff to load the JSON from a local file:
private suspend fun loadAppCreationRequestBody(): JsonElement = - JsonParser.parseString( - client.get("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ably/ably-common/refs/heads/main/test-resources/test-app-setup.json") { - contentType(ContentType.Application.Json) - }.bodyAsText(), - ).asJsonObject.get("post_apps") + JsonParser.parseReader( + InputStreamReader(Sandbox::class.java.getResourceAsStream("/test-app-setup.json")) + ).asJsonObject.get("post_apps")Ensure that
test-app-setup.jsonis placed in thesrc/test/resourcesdirectory.chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomTestHelpers.kt (3)
30-32: Consider avoiding reflection to access private fieldsAccessing private fields
roomIdToRoom,roomGetDeferred, androomReleaseDeferredvia reflection usinggetPrivateFieldcan make tests brittle and tightly coupled to implementation details. Consider redesigning your classes to expose these properties through public methods or interfaces to improve testability without relying on reflection.
35-35: Avoid accessing private fields via reflectionUsing
getPrivateFieldto access the private fieldstatusLifecycleof theRoomclass may lead to fragile tests that break with internal changes. It's advisable to expose necessary testing hooks through public APIs or modify the class design to facilitate testing.
40-46: Reconsider invoking private methods via reflectionThe methods
retryandatomicRetryinvoke private suspend methods usinginvokePrivateSuspendMethod. This practice can result in tests that are tightly coupled to internal implementations and may become brittle over time. Consider refactoring your code to allow for better testability, such as using dependency injection or exposing necessary functionality through interfaces.chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Rooms.kt (4)
27-31: Update documentation to use Kotlin coroutine terminologyThe documentation refers to a "promise," a term commonly used in JavaScript or Promise-based asynchronous APIs. In Kotlin, it's more appropriate to refer to "suspend functions" or "coroutines." Updating the terminology will enhance clarity for Kotlin developers.
76-90: Simplify coroutine usage in thegetmethodIn the
getmethod, you're usingsequentialScope.async { ... }.await(), which can be simplified. Since you're immediately awaiting the result, you can usewithContext(sequentialScope.coroutineContext) { ... }instead. This change improves readability and avoids unnecessary coroutine overhead.Apply this diff to simplify the
getmethod:override suspend fun get(roomId: String, options: RoomOptions): Room { - return sequentialScope.async { + return withContext(sequentialScope.coroutineContext) { val existingRoom = getReleasedOrExistingRoom(roomId) existingRoom?.let { if (options != existingRoom.options) { // CHA-RC1f1 throw ablyException("room already exists with different options", ErrorCodes.BadRequest) } - return@async existingRoom // CHA-RC1f2 + return@withContext existingRoom // CHA-RC1f2 } // CHA-RC1f3 val newRoom = makeRoom(roomId, options) roomIdToRoom[roomId] = newRoom - return@async newRoom + return@withContext newRoom - }.await() }
92-117: Simplify coroutine usage in thereleasemethodIn the
releasemethod, you're launching a coroutine withsequentialScope.launch { ... }and immediately calling.join(). Since you're waiting for the coroutine to complete, you can usewithContext(sequentialScope.coroutineContext) { ... }to simplify the code and reduce unnecessary coroutine creation.Apply this diff to simplify the
releasemethod:override suspend fun release(roomId: String) { - sequentialScope.launch { + withContext(sequentialScope.coroutineContext) { // Existing code inside the coroutine remains unchanged // CHA-RC1g4 - Previous Room Get in progress, cancel all of them roomGetDeferred[roomId]?.let { val exception = ablyException( "room released before get operation could complete", ErrorCodes.RoomReleasedBeforeOperationCompleted, ) it.completeExceptionally(exception) } // CHA-RC1g2, CHA-RC1g3 val existingRoom = roomIdToRoom[roomId] existingRoom?.let { if (roomReleaseDeferred.containsKey(roomId)) { roomReleaseDeferred[roomId]?.await() } else { val roomReleaseDeferred = CompletableDeferred<Unit>() [email protected][roomId] = roomReleaseDeferred existingRoom.release() // CHA-RC1g5 roomReleaseDeferred.complete(Unit) } } roomReleaseDeferred.remove(roomId) roomIdToRoom.remove(roomId) - }.join() }
125-155: Consider refactoringgetReleasedOrExistingRoomfor clarity and maintainabilityThe
getReleasedOrExistingRoomfunction contains nestedletblocks and complex logic, which can make it difficult to read and maintain. Simplifying the control flow and reducing nesting can enhance readability.Consider restructuring the function, for example:
private suspend fun getReleasedOrExistingRoom(roomId: String): Room? { // Handle ongoing room get operation roomGetDeferred[roomId]?.let { it.await() return null } val existingRoom = roomIdToRoom[roomId] ?: return null val roomReleaseInProgress = roomReleaseDeferred[roomId] if (roomReleaseInProgress != null) { val roomGetDeferred = CompletableDeferred<Unit>() this.roomGetDeferred[roomId] = roomGetDeferred roomGetDeferred.invokeOnCompletion { this.roomGetDeferred.remove(roomId) } roomReleaseInProgress.await() if (roomGetDeferred.isActive) { roomGetDeferred.complete(Unit) } else { roomGetDeferred.await() } return null } return existingRoom }This refactoring reduces nesting and makes the function's logic clearer.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Presence.kt (1)
205-208: SimplifywrapInUserCustomDatafunctionConsider simplifying the
wrapInUserCustomDatafunction for clarity. Ifdataneeds to be wrapped in aJsonObjectunderuserCustomData, ensure that this is necessary and efficient.Apply this diff to simplify the function:
-private fun wrapInUserCustomData(data: PresenceData?) = data?.let { - JsonObject().apply { - add("userCustomData", data) - } -} +private fun wrapInUserCustomData(data: PresenceData?) = dataIf wrapping is essential, document the reason for this structure to aid future maintainability.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt (2)
187-224: Consider refactoring feature initialization to reduce code duplicationThe initialization blocks for
presence,typing,reactions, andoccupancyare similar in structure. To enhance maintainability and readability, consider refactoring this code using a common initialization method or pattern that accepts the feature type and corresponding options.For example, you could implement a generic initialization function:
private fun <T : ContributesToRoomLifecycle> initializeFeature( option: Any?, initializer: () -> T, featureSetter: (T) -> Unit ) { option?.let { val featureInstance = initializer() roomFeatures.add(featureInstance) featureSetter(featureInstance) } }And then use it for each feature:
initializeFeature(options.presence, { DefaultPresence( clientId = clientId, channel = messages.channel, presence = messages.channel.presence, ) }) { _presence = it }
141-144: Specify unique error codes for feature access exceptionsCurrently, when a feature like
presence,reactions,typing, oroccupancyis not enabled, accessing it throws an exception withErrorCodes.BadRequest. To improve error handling and make it easier for developers to identify the specific issue, consider defining unique error codes for each feature not being enabled.For example, you could define error codes such as
ErrorCodes.PresenceNotEnabled,ErrorCodes.TypingNotEnabled, etc., in yourErrorCodesenumeration.Also applies to: 150-153, 159-162, 168-171
example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/MainActivity.kt (1)
79-79: Be cautious with experimental Material3 APIsAnnotating with
@OptIn(ExperimentalMaterial3Api::class)indicates reliance on experimental APIs, which may change in future releases and could affect app stability. Consider the potential maintenance overhead or look for stable alternatives if possible.chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomReleaseTest.kt (3)
38-40: Refactor duplicated setup code into a common functionThe initialization of
roomId,mockRealtimeClient, andchatApiis repeated across multiple test methods. To adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle and improve maintainability, consider extracting this setup code into a@Beforemethod or a shared helper function.Also applies to: 65-67, 106-108, 126-128, 183-185
43-47: Extract commonDefaultRoomcreation into a helper methodThe creation and spying of
DefaultRoominstances is duplicated in several tests. Extracting this repeated code into a helper function will reduce duplication, improve readability, and simplify future maintenance.Also applies to: 69-73, 131-134, 187-190
154-159: Reconsider the high iteration count in concurrency testThe loop repeats 1000 times to initiate concurrent room release operations. While stress testing is valuable, such a high iteration count may lead to longer test execution times without significant additional benefit. Consider reducing the iteration count to a more manageable number, such as 100, to balance test effectiveness and efficiency.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt (3)
Line range hint
281-289: Ensure thread-safe access to 'listeners' in 'fromSerialProvider'In the
fromSerialProviderlambda within thesubscribemethod, you accesslisteners[listener]without synchronization. Sincelistenersis a shared mutable resource accessed by multiple threads, consider synchronizing this access to prevent concurrent modification issues.Possible fix:
fromSerialProvider = { + synchronized(lock) { listeners[listener] + } ?: throw AblyException.fromErrorInfo( ErrorInfo( "This messages subscription instance was already unsubscribed", HttpStatusCodes.BadRequest, ErrorCodes.BadRequest.errorCode, ), ) }Alternatively, consider using a thread-safe data structure for
listenersor ensuring that all access to it is appropriately synchronized.
Line range hint
303-312: Address race condition in 'associateWithCurrentChannelSerial'The
associateWithCurrentChannelSerialmethod may lead to race conditions, causing non-deterministic behavior and potential duplicated messages ingetPreviousMessagescalls. Consider revising the implementation to ensure thread safety and determinism, possibly by synchronizing the method or reworking the logic to prevent race conditions.
Line range hint
254-256: Use appropriate HTTP status code for internal errorsWhen
pubSubMessageis null, you throw anAblyExceptionwithHttpStatusCodes.BadRequest. Since this scenario indicates an unexpected internal issue rather than a client error, consider usingHttpStatusCodes.InternalServerErrorto reflect the nature of the error accurately.Suggested change:
throw AblyException.fromErrorInfo( - ErrorInfo("Got empty pubsub channel message", HttpStatusCodes.BadRequest, ErrorCodes.BadRequest.errorCode), + ErrorInfo("Got empty pubsub channel message", HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError, ErrorCodes.InternalError.errorCode), )chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt (3)
326-326: Avoid invoking private methods using reflectionCalling private methods via reflection (
roomLifecycle["doRetry"](capturedContributors.captured)) can lead to fragile tests that depend on implementation details. It's better to expose the necessary functionality through the public API or redesign the class to make testing more straightforward.
368-368: Refactor to eliminate reflection when invoking private methodsInvoking
roomLifecycle["doChannelWindDown"](any<ContributesToRoomLifecycle>())via reflection can make the test code fragile. Refactor the code to allow testing without accessing private methods directly, possibly by using interfaces or exposing limited visibility for testing purposes.
420-420: Reduce reliance on reflection for private method accessRepeated use of reflection to call private methods like
roomLifecycle["doChannelWindDown"](any<ContributesToRoomLifecycle>())is not ideal. Consider alternative testing strategies, such as extracting logic into collaborator classes that can be mocked or spied upon.chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (1)
252-252: Avoid unsafe casting by using the safe call operatorTo prevent potential
NullPointerException, use the safe call operator?when callingdoRetry.Apply this diff to safely handle the nullable
failedFeature:return@coroutineScope failedFeature?.let { doRetry(it) } ?: throw AblyException.fromErrorInfo( ErrorInfo( "no failed feature in doRetry", HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError, ErrorCodes.RoomLifecycleError.errorCode, ), )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (29)
chat-android/build.gradle.kts(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/ErrorCodes.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Occupancy.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Presence.kt(5 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt(3 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt(14 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomOptions.kt(3 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomReactions.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Rooms.kt(4 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Typing.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt(3 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/PresenceTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/SandboxTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/ConfigureRoomOptionsTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomGetTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomReleaseTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomTestHelpers.kt(2 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt(8 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/DetachTest.kt(4 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/PrecedenceTest.kt(3 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt(10 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/RetryTest.kt(8 hunks)example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/MainActivity.kt(5 hunks)example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/Settings.kt(1 hunks)example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/ui/PresencePopup.kt(1 hunks)gradle/libs.versions.toml(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/Settings.kt
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (4)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#55
File: chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt:487-489
Timestamp: 2024-11-17T15:00:12.153Z
Learning: In `RoomLifecycleManager.kt` (Kotlin), within the `doChannelWindDown` method, it's intentional to use referential equality (`===`) to compare `contributor.channel` and `except?.channel` as per specification CHA-RL5a1.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomReleaseTest.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#54
File: chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/ReleaseTest.kt:270-274
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T19:17:01.976Z
Learning: In `ReleaseTest.kt`, randomness is intentionally used in tests to verify that the release operation behaves the same across different channel states.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/PrecedenceTest.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#55
File: chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/PrecedenceTest.kt:41-42
Timestamp: 2024-11-17T19:11:05.841Z
Learning: Test cases for different operation orderings, edge cases (e.g., multiple retries), and cancellation scenarios are covered in `chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt`.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#54
File: chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/ReleaseTest.kt:270-274
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T19:17:01.976Z
Learning: In `ReleaseTest.kt`, randomness is intentionally used in tests to verify that the release operation behaves the same across different channel states.
🔇 Additional comments (60)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/SandboxTest.kt (1)
1-9: LGTM! Imports are clean and appropriate
The imports are well-organized and include all necessary dependencies for testing coroutines and JUnit functionality.
chat-android/build.gradle.kts (1)
53-53: Verify Ktor client version compatibility
The addition of Ktor client for testing async operations is appropriate. However, let's verify the compatibility of version 3.0.1 with other dependencies.
✅ Verification successful
Ktor client dependency is appropriately used for test sandbox environment
The Ktor client (v3.0.1) is correctly used only in test scope for managing sandbox test environments. The implementation in Sandbox.kt shows it's specifically used for test setup to create temporary Ably apps and fetch configuration, with proper retry policies. No version conflicts are detected as no other HTTP clients are used in the project's dependency tree.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential version conflicts and latest versions
# Check the declared versions of related dependencies
cat gradle/libs.versions.toml | grep -A 5 "ktor"
# Look for other Ktor related dependencies that might conflict
rg "ktor" --type gradle
Length of output: 951
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find Ktor usage across the codebase
# Search for Ktor related dependencies in all Gradle files
fd -e gradle -e kts --exec grep -l "ktor"
# Get the content of any found Gradle files containing Ktor
fd -e gradle -e kts --exec sh -c 'echo "=== {} ===" && cat {}'
# Look for Ktor imports or usage in Kotlin files
fd -e kt --exec grep -l "ktor"
Length of output: 5738
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the Sandbox.kt file to understand how Ktor is being used
cat ./chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt
# Let's also check if there are any version conflicts in the dependency tree
# by looking at other HTTP client related dependencies
rg -l "okhttp|retrofit|fuel" gradle/libs.versions.toml
Length of output: 2390
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Occupancy.kt (2)
64-64: Verify the lifecycle management responsibility
The removal of the contributor parameter while still extending ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl suggests this class now manages its own lifecycle. Please ensure this is documented clearly.
Add a class-level KDoc comment explaining the lifecycle management responsibility:
+/**
+ * Default implementation of [Occupancy] that manages its own lifecycle through [ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl].
+ * This component shares its underlying channel with the messages component for efficiency.
+ */
internal class DefaultOccupancy(
private val messages: Messages,
) : Occupancy, ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl() {Line range hint 85-87: Review shared channel cleanup strategy
The comment indicates no cleanup is needed due to shared channel with messages, but this creates a dependency on proper cleanup in the messages component.
Let's verify the cleanup handling in the messages component:
Consider documenting this dependency more explicitly and ensure the Messages component properly handles channel cleanup. This tight coupling might need to be reconsidered in future iterations.
✅ Verification successful
Cleanup strategy is properly handled - no changes needed
The current implementation is correct. Looking at the code:
DefaultOccupancyshares the channel with Messages component (override val channel = messages.channel)DefaultOccupancy.release()explicitly documents that no cleanup is needed since it shares the channelDefaultMessages.release()properly handles the channel cleanup by callingrealtimeChannels.release(channel.name)
The dependency is intentional and well-managed - Messages owns the channel lifecycle and Occupancy is designed to be a passive consumer of the same channel. This is a valid architectural decision that promotes resource efficiency.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for release/cleanup handling in Messages implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class DefaultMessages {
$$$
release() {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 86
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the Messages implementation file
fd "Messages" --type f
# Then search for any cleanup or release related patterns in those files
rg -l "cleanup|release|dispose|close" $(fd "Messages" --type f)
# Finally, let's look for channel cleanup patterns in the entire codebase
rg -A 5 "channel.*cleanup|cleanup.*channel"
Length of output: 405
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the Messages.kt file for cleanup/release related code
cat chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt
# Also let's check the Occupancy.kt file to understand the context better
cat chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Occupancy.kt
Length of output: 15933
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomOptions.kt (1)
73-75: Verify impact of reduced typing timeout
The typing timeout has been reduced from 10,000ms to 5,000ms. This significant reduction could affect user experience, especially in poor network conditions.
Please verify:
- The rationale behind this change
- Whether this aligns with other chat SDK implementations
- If this has been tested with varying network conditions
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Typing.kt (2)
81-81: LGTM! Good design improvement.
The inheritance from ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl() is a clean approach to standardize room lifecycle management across components.
81-81: Verify async lifecycle management support.
Since this PR focuses on implementing async room operations, we should verify that ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl provides the necessary async lifecycle management capabilities.
✅ Verification successful
Base class provides comprehensive async lifecycle management support
The ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl base class, along with the RoomLifecycleManager, provides robust async lifecycle management through:
- Coroutine-based async operations for attach, detach, and release operations
- Proper handling of channel state transitions and error conditions
- Atomic operation scoping to ensure thread safety
- Suspension points for controlled async flow
- Proper cleanup and resource management
The implementation aligns perfectly with the PR objectives for async room operations and proper lifecycle management.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the base class implementation for async support
# Look for async methods in ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl
# Search for the base class definition and its methods
ast-grep --pattern 'class ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl {
$$$
}'
# Look for suspend functions in the base class
rg -t kotlin "suspend.*fun" --glob "*ContributesToRoomLifecycle*.kt"
Length of output: 289
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the actual file containing ContributesToRoomLifecycle
fd "ContributesToRoomLifecycle" --type f
# Then examine its content
fd "ContributesToRoomLifecycle" --type f --exec cat {}
Length of output: 97
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching in the chat-android directory specifically
cd chat-android
fd "ContributesToRoomLifecycle" --type f
# Also try searching with ripgrep for any mentions of this class
rg "ContributesToRoomLifecycle" --type kotlin
Length of output: 4551
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the RoomLifecycleManager.kt content to understand the async capabilities
cat chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt
Length of output: 30360
gradle/libs.versions.toml (3)
54-55: LGTM! Good choice of Ktor client engine
The addition of ktor-client-core and ktor-client-cio is appropriate for implementing async operations. The CIO engine is a good choice as it's lightweight and coroutine-based, which aligns well with Android development.
57-59: LGTM! Well-structured bundle declaration
The bundle groups related Ktor client dependencies together, following Gradle's best practices for dependency management.
23-23: Verify Ktor 3.x compatibility with existing dependencies
The addition of Ktor 3.0.1 introduces a major version dependency. While this is a stable version, being a major version upgrade, it might have breaking changes.
✅ Verification successful
Ktor 3.0.1 usage is appropriate and compatible
The Ktor dependency is only used in test code (chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt) and is properly declared in the version catalog. The implementation:
- Uses Ktor client only in test scope via
testImplementation(libs.bundles.ktor.client) - Employs basic HTTP client features (CIO engine and retry mechanism)
- Has no production dependencies that could cause version conflicts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if any other dependencies in the project have explicit Ktor version requirements
# that might conflict with 3.0.1
# Search for Ktor dependencies in Gradle files
rg -l "ktor" --glob "*.gradle*"
# Search for version constraints in dependency locks
fd "gradle.lockfile" --exec cat {} \; | rg "ktor"
Length of output: 112
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual Ktor dependencies and their usage in the Gradle files
cat chat-android/build.gradle.kts
# Also check for any previous Ktor version references in git history
git grep -l "ktor" $(git rev-parse HEAD^)
# Look for Ktor-related imports and usage in the codebase
rg -l "io\.ktor" --type kotlin
Length of output: 1893
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the Sandbox.kt file and the previous version of libs.versions.toml
cat chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt
cat gradle/libs.versions.toml
# Also check the specific Ktor-related changes in the version catalog
git show eaba999effd3c3a9dbf21bbf9073847598c8aa51:gradle/libs.versions.toml | grep -A 5 -B 5 "ktor"
Length of output: 7002
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/ConfigureRoomOptionsTest.kt (2)
1-14: LGTM! Clean and appropriate imports.
The imports are well-organized and include all necessary dependencies for testing.
1-91: Verify test coverage for async operations.
While these tests effectively cover room configuration validation, they don't address the async room operations mentioned in the PR objectives (specifically from issue #51 regarding rooms.get and rooms.release).
✅ Verification successful
Test coverage for async operations is comprehensive
The test files demonstrate thorough coverage of async room operations:
-
RoomGetTest.ktcovers:- Basic room retrieval
- Concurrent get operations
- Room reuse with same options
- Get operations during release
- Error handling for conflicting options
-
RoomReleaseTest.ktcovers:- Basic room release
- Concurrent release operations
- Release state transitions
- Release during pending get operations
- Error handling and cleanup
The test coverage aligns perfectly with the PR objectives regarding async room operations, including proper handling of concurrent operations and edge cases.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files covering async room operations
echo "Searching for test files covering async room operations..."
fd -e kt -e java "Room.*Test" | xargs rg -l "rooms?.get|rooms?.release"
Length of output: 326
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of these test files to verify coverage
echo "=== Content of RoomGetTest.kt ==="
cat chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomGetTest.kt
echo -e "\n=== Content of RoomReleaseTest.kt ==="
cat chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomReleaseTest.kt
Length of output: 20253
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/PrecedenceTest.kt (4)
Line range hint 1-24: LGTM! Package structure aligns with room lifecycle management improvements.
The reorganization of imports and movement to the lifecycle subpackage improves code organization and better reflects the component's responsibilities.
Line range hint 26-33: Well-documented test setup with clear specification reference.
The test documentation clearly links to the specification (CHA-RL7) and the room scope setup correctly uses single-threaded execution, which is essential for testing atomic operations.
Line range hint 54-58: LGTM! Type change aligns with enhanced room management.
The change from ResolvedContributor to ContributesToRoomLifecycle correctly reflects the updated architecture for room lifecycle management.
Line range hint 35-96: Test coverage looks good.
The core precedence scenarios are well-tested here, and edge cases (multiple retries, cancellations) are covered in AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt as noted in the learnings.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/PresenceTest.kt (1)
1-144: Verify test coverage for async room operations.
While these presence tests are well-implemented, we should ensure there's corresponding test coverage for the async room operations mentioned in the PR objectives (room GET and release).
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt (1)
181-181: LGTM! Status initialization change aligns with the new lifecycle.
The change from Initializing to Initialized as the initial state aligns with the simplified room lifecycle and supports the async room operations objective.
Let's verify that no code depends on the removed Initializing state:
✅ Verification successful
Initialization change is safe and correctly implemented
The only occurrence of "initializing" is in Discontinuities.kt documentation and is unrelated to RoomStatus. The codebase shows no references to RoomStatus.Initializing, and the state machine in RoomStatus.kt is well-defined with Initialized as the entry point. The change aligns perfectly with the documented states and transitions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to the removed Initializing state
rg -i "initializing" --type kotlin
Length of output: 157
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the context of the "initializing" reference in Discontinuities.kt
rg -B 2 -A 2 "initializing" chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Discontinuities.kt
# Also check for any usage of RoomStatus.Initializing specifically
rg -i "RoomStatus\.Initializing" --type kotlin
# Let's also verify the state transitions in RoomStatus.kt
cat chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt
Length of output: 5978
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt (2)
3-3: LGTM! Imports are appropriate for the new async functionality.
The added imports support the new coroutine-based presence operations and error handling.
Also applies to: 9-9, 13-16
59-61: LGTM! Clean implementation of get operations.
The use of withContext(Dispatchers.IO) is appropriate for the blocking get operations, and the spread operator usage for the list variant is clean.
Also applies to: 63-66
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomReactions.kt (1)
110-110: LGTM! Good integration with room lifecycle management.
The addition of ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl() as a parent class aligns well with the PR's objective of implementing async room operations and standardizing feature lifecycle management.
Let's verify the release behavior to ensure proper synchronization:
✅ Verification successful
The release behavior is properly synchronized and consistent across components
Based on the verification results:
- All components inheriting from
ContributesToRoomLifecycleImplfollow a consistent release pattern - The
Messagesimplementation includes proper synchronization with alockobject - Components sharing the same channel (Presence, Occupancy) correctly defer to the main channel's release
- Release operations are coordinated through the
RoomLifecycleManager
The addition of ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl to RoomReactions aligns with the established pattern and maintains the synchronization guarantees of the room lifecycle management system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential race conditions in release operations
# Look for other implementations of ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl
# and compare release patterns
# Find all Kotlin files implementing ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl
echo "Searching for other ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl implementations..."
rg -l "ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl" --type kotlin
# Look for release-related synchronization patterns
echo "Checking release-related synchronization patterns..."
rg -A 5 "override fun release" --type kotlin
Length of output: 2377
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl class to understand the synchronization guarantees
ast-grep --pattern 'class ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl {
$$$
}'
# Also check RoomLifecycleManager to understand how release is coordinated
ast-grep --pattern 'class RoomLifecycleManager {
$$$
}'
# Check if there's any synchronization in RealtimeChannels
rg -A 10 "class RealtimeChannels" --type kotlin
Length of output: 179
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the implementation details
# Check ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl
rg -A 10 "ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl" --type kotlin
# Check RoomLifecycleManager implementation
rg -A 10 "class RoomLifecycleManager" --type kotlin
# Check RealtimeChannels implementation
rg -A 10 "RealtimeChannels" --type kotlin
Length of output: 7278
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomGetTest.kt (1)
32-216: Verify non-blocking nature of async operations.
While the tests cover async behavior, consider adding specific tests to verify that room operations don't block the main thread. This aligns with the PR objective of implementing truly asynchronous operations.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/RetryTest.kt (7)
Line range hint 1-12: LGTM! Package restructuring aligns with lifecycle management focus
The move to the lifecycle subpackage better reflects the component's responsibility and improves code organization.
89-89: LGTM! Good error handling test coverage
The test properly validates the failure handling during channel winddown, ensuring the room enters a failed state when a contributor channel fails.
119-119: LGTM! Comprehensive failure scenario coverage
The test effectively validates failure handling during the retry operation, complementing the winddown scenario test.
140-140: LGTM! Well-structured state transition test
The test effectively validates the attach operation behavior with proper mocking of channel state listeners and verifications.
178-180: LGTM! Thorough error state validation
The test properly validates both the error state transition and the error information propagation, ensuring proper failure handling during the attach wait phase.
211-211: LGTM! Excellent attach operation validation
The test provides comprehensive coverage of the successful attach operation flow, including proper verification of channel operation order and channel names.
54-54: Verify the contributor interface changes across the codebase
The change from it.contributor.featureName to it.featureName suggests a refactoring of the contributor interface. Let's verify this change is consistent across the codebase.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/DetachTest.kt (4)
1-14: LGTM: Package restructuring aligns with architectural changes
The package reorganization and import updates properly reflect the new architectural structure for room lifecycle management.
253-253: LGTM: Consistent type reference updates
The change from ResolvedContributor to ContributesToRoomLifecycle is consistently applied in the verification calls, maintaining the test's integrity while aligning with the new type system.
Also applies to: 341-341
Line range hint 42-343: LGTM: Comprehensive test coverage maintained
The test suite thoroughly covers:
- Success and failure scenarios for room detachment
- Various room states (Released, Failed, etc.)
- Error handling and retries
- State transition verification
- Contributor channel detachment sequencing
The changes successfully preserve test coverage while adapting to the new architecture.
164-164: Verify alignment with CHA-RS3 specification
The status assertion has been updated from Initializing to Initialized. While the comment provides traceability to spec CHA-RS3, let's verify this aligns with the specification.
✅ Verification successful
Status change to Initialized is correctly aligned with CHA-RS3
The codebase search confirms that the status change from Initializing to Initialized is consistently implemented across the codebase and is properly tagged with CHA-RS3. This is evidenced by:
- The base implementation in
RoomStatus.ktsets the initial status asInitializedwith the CHA-RS3 tag - Multiple test files (
DetachTest.ktandAttachTest.kt) consistently verify this initial state - The change appears to be part of a deliberate specification implementation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CHA-RS3 specification details in documentation
rg -A 5 "CHA-RS3" --type md
Length of output: 27
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for any references to CHA-RS3 in the codebase
rg "CHA-RS3" -A 5
# Also search for any test files containing RoomStatus to understand the status lifecycle
fd "Test.*\.kt" --exec rg "RoomStatus\." -A 3 {}
Length of output: 18474
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt (6)
Line range hint 1-29: LGTM! Package restructuring improves code organization
The move to com.ably.chat.room.lifecycle package better reflects the component's responsibility for managing room lifecycle operations.
140-142: LGTM! Proper initial state setup
The test correctly sets up the initial state as Attached before testing the release operation.
271-273: LGTM! Intentional use of randomness for comprehensive testing
The random channel states help verify that the release operation behaves consistently across different states, as intended.
332-334: LGTM! Proper verification of channel cleanup
The test correctly verifies that channels are properly released to prevent memory leaks.
363-366: LGTM! Proper verification of operation queuing
The test correctly verifies that release operations are properly queued and wait for existing operations to complete.
93-93: Verify TODO comments and test implementation
The test case requires clarification as per ably/ably-chat-js#399. Consider adding a link to the issue in the TODO comment for better traceability.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomTestHelpers.kt (1)
64-67:
Verify if direct manipulation of AblyRealtimeChannel state is safe
Directly setting the state and reason properties of AblyRealtimeChannel may bypass internal state management mechanisms, potentially leading to inconsistent states or unintended side effects. Verify whether these properties are intended to be modified directly, or use appropriate public methods provided by the API to alter the channel state safely.
Run the following script to check if state and reason properties are mutable and safe to modify:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Direct state manipulation is safe in test context only
The setState extension function is defined in RoomTestHelpers.kt and is only used within test files for simulating channel state transitions during testing. This is a valid testing approach as:
- It's only used in test files (
*Test.kt) to simulate various channel states for testing error handling and state transitions - The implementation is contained within test helpers and not exposed to production code
- The pattern is consistently used across multiple test files for testing lifecycle management, retry logic, and error scenarios
- The test context requires direct state manipulation to verify edge cases and error conditions that would be difficult to trigger otherwise
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify if 'state' and 'reason' properties in 'AblyRealtimeChannel' are mutable.
# Search for property declarations of 'state' and 'reason' in 'AblyRealtimeChannel' class
rg -A 5 'class.*AblyRealtimeChannel' | rg -E 'var (state|reason)'
Length of output: 464
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for AblyRealtimeChannel class definition and its properties
rg -A 10 "class.*AblyRealtimeChannel"
# Search for state and reason property usages in AblyRealtimeChannel
ast-grep --pattern 'class AblyRealtimeChannel {
$$$
var state: $_
$$$
}'
ast-grep --pattern 'class AblyRealtimeChannel {
$$$
var reason: $_
$$$
}'
# Search for test files using RoomTestHelpers to understand the context
fd RoomTestHelpers.kt --exec cat {}
Length of output: 3339
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files that use setState helper to understand its usage context
rg -B 5 -A 5 "setState.*ChannelState"
# Look for any channel state transition methods in the codebase
rg -B 3 -A 3 "channel.*state.*=|setState"
# Search for test files to understand if this is a test utility
fd -e kt -e java --exec rg -l "setState.*ChannelState" {}
Length of output: 67223
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Presence.kt (6)
16-16: Update of PresenceData type alias to JsonElement
The type alias PresenceData has been updated from Any to JsonElement, enhancing type safety and ensuring that presence data conforms to JSON structures.
37-37: Improved get method signature for clarity
The get method now accepts explicit parameters waitForSync, clientId, and connectionId, replacing the generic params list. This enhances clarity and makes the method easier to use.
Line range hint 45-45: Addition of isUserPresent method
The new isUserPresent method provides a straightforward way to check if a user is present based on their clientId, improving the utility of the Presence interface.
51-51: Default values for data in presence methods
The enter, update, and leave methods now have default null values for the data parameter. This allows these methods to be called without explicitly providing data, increasing flexibility.
Also applies to: 58-58, 65-65
173-173: Verify correctness of isUserPresent implementation
The isUserPresent method checks for user presence by querying with the clientId. Ensure that this method accurately reflects the user's presence state, considering potential delays in presence synchronization.
Run the following script to test the isUserPresent method:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the implementation and tests.
Let me check the test implementation to verify the correctness.
Based on the implementation and test review, I can now provide the final response:
isUserPresent implementation is correct and reliable
The implementation correctly uses Ably's presence API by:
- Using
presence.getCoroutinewhich safely wraps the synchronousgetoperation in an IO context - Querying with
GET_CLIENTIDparameter which is the standard Ably way to filter presence by client ID - Using
isNotEmpty()check which correctly handles the array of presence messages returned
The method properly handles presence synchronization as it uses the underlying Ably SDK's presence system which maintains consistency through connection state changes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that `isUserPresent` correctly identifies user presence.
# Mock presence data and test the method.
# Since we cannot execute Kotlin code directly, review unit tests covering `isUserPresent`.
fd --type f --name '*Test.kt' | xargs rg 'isUserPresent\(' -A 5
Length of output: 1625
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files related to Presence
fd "Presence.*Test" --type f
# Look for the implementation details of presence.getCoroutine
rg "getCoroutine.*Param" -B 2 -A 2
# Search for any usage patterns of isUserPresent
rg "isUserPresent" --type kotlin -B 2 -A 2
# Look for the Param class definition and GET_CLIENTID constant
ast-grep --pattern 'class Param'
rg "GET_CLIENTID" --type kotlin
Length of output: 2746
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for test implementations in PresenceTest.kt
cat chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/PresenceTest.kt
# Look for any mocks or test utilities related to Presence
rg "class.*Mock.*Presence" --type kotlin -A 5
rg "fun.*test.*presence" --type kotlin -A 5
Length of output: 4360
29-29: Change of channel property type to Channel
The channel property now uses the Channel type instead of AblyRealtimeChannel. Verify that this change is compatible throughout the codebase and that all interactions with channel remain consistent.
Run the following script to check for usages of channel in the codebase:
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt (7)
127-128: Correct initialization of CoroutineScope with limited parallelism
The use of Dispatchers.Default.limitedParallelism(1) combined with CoroutineName(roomId) and SupervisorJob() effectively ensures that all operations within roomScope are sequential and properly supervised, preventing concurrency issues within the room.
138-145: Appropriate lazy initialization and access control for Presence feature
The presence property is lazily initialized based on the RoomOptions. Throwing an exception when presence is accessed without being enabled prevents unintended usage and provides clear feedback to the developer.
147-154: Consistent lazy initialization pattern for Reactions feature
The implementation of the reactions property follows the same lazy initialization pattern as other features, ensuring that reactions are only available when enabled and providing an exception if accessed prematurely.
156-163: Lazy initialization of Typing feature with proper error handling
The typing property correctly checks for initialization and throws an exception when the feature is not enabled, maintaining consistency across feature implementations.
165-172: Occupancy feature initialization aligns with other features
The occupancy property's lazy initialization and error handling are consistent with the other room features, ensuring predictable behavior when features are accessed.
185-186: Validation of RoomOptions upon initialization
Calling options.validateRoomOptions() in the constructor ensures that any invalid room options are caught early, preventing potential errors during runtime.
244-249: Verify that external references to release() have been updated
By changing the release() method to internal, it is now inaccessible from outside the module. Ensure that all external references to Room.release() have been removed or updated to prevent compilation errors and maintain API consistency.
Run the following script to identify any external calls to release() on Room instances:
✅ Verification successful
No issues with release() method visibility change
The verification shows that all release() calls are either:
- Internal calls from
DefaultRooms(the only place that should callrelease()) - Test-specific calls that are within the same module
- Lifecycle-related calls on different classes
The change to make Room.release() internal is safe as there are no external references to this method that would be broken by the visibility change.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for external calls to the `release()` method on `Room` instances.
# Test: Find all usages of `release()` being called on a `Room` object outside `DefaultRoom`.
# Expect: No occurrences if all external references have been updated or removed.
rg --type kotlin '\bRoom\b[^\n]*\.\s*release\s*\('
Length of output: 52
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search approach:
# 1. Find all Kotlin files that might reference Room
echo "=== Files containing 'Room' class ==="
rg --type kotlin "class.*Room|interface.*Room"
# 2. Search for any release() method calls
echo -e "\n=== All release() method calls ==="
rg --type kotlin "\.release\(\)"
# 3. Search specifically in the Rooms interface implementation
echo -e "\n=== Content of Rooms interface implementation ==="
fd -e kt "Rooms.kt|DefaultRooms.kt" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 13223
example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/MainActivity.kt (1)
90-93: Ensuring accessibility with descriptive content descriptions
The IconButton and Icon components are properly used, and the contentDescription enhances accessibility by providing meaningful descriptions for screen readers.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomReleaseTest.kt (1)
262-272: Validate exception handling for cancelled room get operations
The test correctly verifies that pending rooms.get operations are cancelled when a room release is initiated, and that they fail with the expected AblyException containing the appropriate error code and message. This thorough validation ensures robust error handling in the SDK.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt (1)
230-230:
Declare 'listeners' as a MutableMap to allow modifications
The listeners variable is declared as a Map, which is immutable. Since you are adding and removing entries to it in addListener and removeListener, you should declare it as a MutableMap to allow mutations.
Here's the fix:
- private var listeners: Map<Messages.Listener, DeferredValue<String>> = emptyMap()
+ private var listeners: MutableMap<Messages.Listener, DeferredValue<String>> = mutableMapOf()Likely invalid or redundant comment.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt (2)
1-1: Package update reflects codebase reorganization
The package has been changed to com.ably.chat.room.lifecycle, indicating a reorganization of the codebase. This update is appropriate and helps in maintaining a structured package hierarchy.
94-94: Verify the initial room status in the test
The assertion Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Initialized, statusLifecycle.status) checks that the room status is Initialized before proceeding. Ensure that this is the intended initial state for this test scenario, matching the specification CHA-RS3.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (2)
474-475: Confirm intentional use of referential equality (===)
In the doChannelWindDown function, you're using referential equality (===) to compare contributor.channel and except?.channel. According to the specification CHA-RL5a1 and previous learnings, this is intentional.
Referencing previous learning:
In
RoomLifecycleManager.kt, within thedoChannelWindDownmethod, it's intentional to use referential equality (===) to comparecontributor.channelandexcept?.channelas per specification CHA-RL5a1.
713-713: Ensure release() properly cleans up resources
When calling it.release() on each ContributesToRoomLifecycle, verify that the release() method adequately releases all resources to prevent potential memory leaks.
Run the following script to check for overridden release methods in implementations:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to find implementations and their release methods.
release() implementations are properly handling resource cleanup
All implementations of ContributesToRoomLifecycle have been found and their release() methods are correctly implemented:
Messages,RoomReactions, andTypingproperly release their respective channels usingrealtimeChannels.release(channel.name)PresenceandOccupancyshare the same channel as Messages, so they correctly document that no additional cleanup is needed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that all implementations of ContributesToRoomLifecycle override the release() method.
# Find all classes implementing ContributesToRoomLifecycle and check if release() is overridden.
ast-grep --pattern $'class $_ extends ContributesToRoomLifecycle {
$$$
override fun release() {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 133
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the ContributesToRoomLifecycle interface/class definition
rg -l "ContributesToRoomLifecycle"
# Then search for classes implementing/extending it with a different pattern
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : ContributesToRoomLifecycle'
# Also search for the release method implementations
rg "override\s+fun\s+release" -A 5
Length of output: 2474
| @Test | ||
| @Ignore | ||
| fun `should return empty list of presence members if nobody is entered`() = runTest { | ||
| val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() | ||
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) | ||
| room.attach() | ||
| val members = room.presence.get() | ||
| assertEquals(0, members.size) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Test needs improvements for reliability
- The test is currently ignored. Please document the reason for ignoring or fix the underlying issues.
- The
attach()call is asynchronous but there's no await or verification of completion before checking presence. - Consider adding error handling and timeout parameters.
- room.attach()
- val members = room.presence.get()
+ room.attach().await() // Wait for attachment completion
+ val members = withTimeout(5000) {
+ room.presence.get()
+ }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| @Test | |
| @Ignore | |
| fun `should return empty list of presence members if nobody is entered`() = runTest { | |
| val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() | |
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) | |
| room.attach() | |
| val members = room.presence.get() | |
| assertEquals(0, members.size) | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| @Ignore | |
| fun `should return empty list of presence members if nobody is entered`() = runTest { | |
| val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() | |
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) | |
| room.attach().await() // Wait for attachment completion | |
| val members = withTimeout(5000) { | |
| room.presence.get() | |
| } | |
| assertEquals(0, members.size) | |
| } |
| @Test | ||
| @Ignore | ||
| fun `should return yourself as presence member after you entered`() = runTest { | ||
| val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() | ||
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) | ||
| room.attach() | ||
| room.presence.enter() | ||
| val members = room.presence.get() | ||
| assertEquals(1, members.size) | ||
| assertEquals("sandbox-client", members.first().clientId) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test reliability and maintainability
Several improvements are needed:
- The test is ignored without documentation of the reason
- Async operations (
attach()andenter()) need proper await calls - The hardcoded client ID should be extracted to a constant
+ private companion object {
+ const val SANDBOX_CLIENT_ID = "sandbox-client"
+ }
@Test
@Ignore // TODO: Document why this test is ignored
fun `should return yourself as presence member after you entered`() = runTest {
val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient()
val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString())
- room.attach()
- room.presence.enter()
- val members = room.presence.get()
+ room.attach().await()
+ room.presence.enter().await()
+ val members = withTimeout(5000) {
+ room.presence.get()
+ }
assertEquals(1, members.size)
- assertEquals("sandbox-client", members.first().clientId)
+ assertEquals(SANDBOX_CLIENT_ID, members.first().clientId)
+ // Additional assertions for other member properties
+ with(members.first()) {
+ assertNotNull(connectionId)
+ assertNotNull(timestamp)
+ }
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| @Test | |
| @Ignore | |
| fun `should return yourself as presence member after you entered`() = runTest { | |
| val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() | |
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) | |
| room.attach() | |
| room.presence.enter() | |
| val members = room.presence.get() | |
| assertEquals(1, members.size) | |
| assertEquals("sandbox-client", members.first().clientId) | |
| } | |
| private companion object { | |
| const val SANDBOX_CLIENT_ID = "sandbox-client" | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| @Ignore // TODO: Document why this test is ignored | |
| fun `should return yourself as presence member after you entered`() = runTest { | |
| val chatClient = sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() | |
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) | |
| room.attach().await() | |
| room.presence.enter().await() | |
| val members = withTimeout(5000) { | |
| room.presence.get() | |
| } | |
| assertEquals(1, members.size) | |
| assertEquals(SANDBOX_CLIENT_ID, members.first().clientId) | |
| // Additional assertions for other member properties | |
| with(members.first()) { | |
| assertNotNull(connectionId) | |
| assertNotNull(timestamp) | |
| } | |
| } |
| Text("Chat Members", style = MaterialTheme.typography.headlineMedium) | ||
| Spacer(modifier = Modifier.height(8.dp)) | ||
| members.forEach { member -> | ||
| BasicText("${member.clientId} - (${(member.data as? JsonObject)?.get("status")?.asString})") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add null safety and improve state handling
The current implementation has unsafe type casting and lacks proper state handling.
Consider this safer implementation:
-BasicText("${member.clientId} - (${(member.data as? JsonObject)?.get("status")?.asString})")
+val status = remember(member.data) {
+ when (val data = member.data) {
+ is JsonObject -> data.get("status")?.asString ?: "unknown"
+ else -> "unknown"
+ }
+}
+BasicText("${member.clientId} - ($status)")Also consider adding loading and empty states:
if (members.isEmpty()) {
Text("No members in the chat", style = MaterialTheme.typography.bodyMedium)
}| fun PresencePopup(chatClient: ChatClient, onDismiss: () -> Unit) { | ||
| var members by remember { mutableStateOf(listOf<PresenceMember>()) } | ||
| val coroutineScope = rememberCoroutineScope() | ||
| val presence = runBlocking { chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID).presence } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Remove blocking call from the Composable function
Using runBlocking in a Composable function can lead to UI freezes and poor user experience. This should be replaced with a coroutine-based approach.
Consider refactoring to use LaunchedEffect:
-val presence = runBlocking { chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID).presence }
+var presence by remember { mutableStateOf<Presence?>(null) }
+LaunchedEffect(Unit) {
+ presence = chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID).presence
+}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| val presence = runBlocking { chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID).presence } | |
| var presence by remember { mutableStateOf<Presence?>(null) } | |
| LaunchedEffect(Unit) { | |
| presence = chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID).presence | |
| } |
| DisposableEffect(Unit) { | ||
| var subscription: Subscription? = null | ||
|
|
||
| coroutineScope.launch { | ||
| members = presence.get() | ||
| subscription = presence.subscribe { | ||
| coroutineScope.launch { | ||
| members = presence.get() | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| onDispose { | ||
| subscription?.unsubscribe() | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve error handling and subscription management
The current implementation has several areas for improvement:
- Potential race condition between initial get() and subscribe
- Missing error handling for network operations
- Nested coroutine structure could be simplified
Consider this improved implementation:
DisposableEffect(Unit) {
var subscription: Subscription? = null
coroutineScope.launch {
- members = presence.get()
- subscription = presence.subscribe {
- coroutineScope.launch {
- members = presence.get()
- }
- }
+ try {
+ // Get initial members
+ members = presence.get()
+
+ // Subscribe to updates
+ subscription = presence.subscribe { _ ->
+ try {
+ members = presence.get()
+ } catch (e: Exception) {
+ Log.e("PresencePopup", "Failed to update members", e)
+ // Consider showing an error message to the user
+ }
+ }
+ } catch (e: Exception) {
+ Log.e("PresencePopup", "Failed to initialize presence", e)
+ // Show error state to user
+ }
}
onDispose {
subscription?.unsubscribe()
}
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| DisposableEffect(Unit) { | |
| var subscription: Subscription? = null | |
| coroutineScope.launch { | |
| members = presence.get() | |
| subscription = presence.subscribe { | |
| coroutineScope.launch { | |
| members = presence.get() | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| onDispose { | |
| subscription?.unsubscribe() | |
| } | |
| } | |
| DisposableEffect(Unit) { | |
| var subscription: Subscription? = null | |
| coroutineScope.launch { | |
| try { | |
| // Get initial members | |
| members = presence.get() | |
| // Subscribe to updates | |
| subscription = presence.subscribe { _ -> | |
| try { | |
| members = presence.get() | |
| } catch (e: Exception) { | |
| Log.e("PresencePopup", "Failed to update members", e) | |
| // Consider showing an error message to the user | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } catch (e: Exception) { | |
| Log.e("PresencePopup", "Failed to initialize presence", e) | |
| // Show error state to user | |
| } | |
| } | |
| onDispose { | |
| subscription?.unsubscribe() | |
| } | |
| } |
| @@ -83,8 +114,7 @@ fun Chat(chatClient: ChatClient, modifier: Modifier = Modifier) { | |||
| val coroutineScope = rememberCoroutineScope() | |||
| var receivedReactions by remember { mutableStateOf<List<String>>(listOf()) } | |||
|
|
|||
| val roomId = "my-room" | |||
| val room = chatClient.rooms.get(roomId) | |||
| val room = runBlocking { chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID) } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid using runBlocking inside composable functions
Using runBlocking inside a composable function can block the UI thread, leading to a frozen or unresponsive UI. Instead, consider using LaunchedEffect or rememberCoroutineScope to perform asynchronous operations without blocking the main thread.
Apply this diff to refactor the code:
- val room = runBlocking { chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID) }
+ var room by remember { mutableStateOf<Room?>(null) }
+
+ LaunchedEffect(Unit) {
+ room = chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID)
+ room?.attach()
+ }Ensure to handle the nullability of room in your composables and manage the lifecycle appropriately.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| val room = runBlocking { chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID) } | |
| var room by remember { mutableStateOf<Room?>(null) } | |
| LaunchedEffect(Unit) { | |
| room = chatClient.rooms.get(Settings.ROOM_ID) | |
| room?.attach() | |
| } |
| val pendingDiscontinuityEvents = mutableMapOf<ContributesToRoomLifecycle, ErrorInfo?>().apply { | ||
| for (contributor in contributors) { | ||
| put(contributor, ErrorInfo("${contributor.channel.name} error", 500)) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid direct manipulation of private fields
Setting private fields using reflection (this.setPrivateField("_pendingDiscontinuityEvents", pendingDiscontinuityEvents)) can make tests brittle and tightly coupled to implementation details. Consider refactoring the code to provide accessors or using dependency injection to set up the necessary state for testing.
|
|
||
| // Behaviour for CHA-RL5 will be tested as a part of sub spec for the same | ||
| coEvery { roomLifecycle["doRetry"](capture(resolvedContributor)) } coAnswers { | ||
| coEvery { roomLifecycle["doRetry"](capture(capturedContributors)) } coAnswers { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Replace delay with virtual time control in unit tests
Using delay(1000) in unit tests can slow down the test suite and lead to flaky tests. Consider using a TestCoroutineDispatcher or TestScope to control the virtual time and advance time programmatically. This approach improves test performance and reliability.
| @@ -179,7 +167,7 @@ class RoomLifecycleManager( | |||
| * | |||
| * Used to control whether we should trigger discontinuity events. | |||
| */ | |||
| private val _firstAttachesCompleted = mutableMapOf<ResolvedContributor, Boolean>() | |||
| private val _firstAttachesCompleted = mutableMapOf<ContributesToRoomLifecycle, Boolean>() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Ensure ContributesToRoomLifecycle implements equals and hashCode properly
Since ContributesToRoomLifecycle instances are used as keys in mutable maps (e.g., _firstAttachesCompleted), it's important that they have consistent and correct implementations of equals and hashCode to avoid unexpected behavior.
Consider defining equals and hashCode in the implementations of ContributesToRoomLifecycle to ensure map keys function correctly:
interface ContributesToRoomLifecycle : EmitsDiscontinuities, HandlesDiscontinuity {
// Existing properties and methods
// Ensure implementations override equals and hashCode
override fun equals(other: Any?): Boolean
override fun hashCode(): Int
}| @@ -261,7 +249,7 @@ class RoomLifecycleManager( | |||
| ) | |||
| } | |||
| // No need to catch errors, rather they should propagate to caller method | |||
| return@coroutineScope doRetry(failedFeature as ResolvedContributor) | |||
| return@coroutineScope doRetry(failedFeature as ContributesToRoomLifecycle) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle the case when failedFeature is null to prevent NullPointerException
The failedFeature variable is nullable, and while you check if it's null, you do not handle the null case appropriately. If failedFeature is null, casting it to ContributesToRoomLifecycle will result in a NullPointerException.
Apply this diff to properly handle the null case:
if (failedFeature == null) {
throw AblyException.fromErrorInfo(
ErrorInfo(
"no failed feature in doRetry",
HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError,
ErrorCodes.RoomLifecycleError.errorCode,
),
)
}
return@coroutineScope doRetry(failedFeature as ContributesToRoomLifecycle)Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/TestUtils.kt (1)
90-92: LGTM! Consider documenting the utility functions.The new error utility functions provide a clean abstraction for creating standardized test errors. Consider adding KDoc comments to document their purpose and usage.
+/** + * Creates an Ably exception with a Bad Request (400) error code. + * @param errorMessage The error message to include in the exception + */ fun clientError(errorMessage: String) = ablyException(errorMessage, ErrorCodes.BadRequest, HttpStatusCodes.BadRequest) +/** + * Creates an Ably exception with an Internal Server Error (500) error code. + * @param errorMessage The error message to include in the exception + */ fun serverError(errorMessage: String) = ablyException(errorMessage, ErrorCodes.InternalError, HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt (1)
199-231: Add KDoc documentation for public utility functions.While the implementation is solid, these public utility functions would benefit from proper documentation explaining their purpose and parameters.
Consider adding documentation and improving parameter names:
+/** + * Creates an ErrorInfo instance for lifecycle-related errors. + * + * @param message The detailed error message + * @param code The specific error code from ErrorCodes enum + * @param httpStatus The HTTP status code (defaults to 500) + * @return ErrorInfo instance + */ fun lifeCycleErrorInfo( - errorMessage: String, - errorCode: ErrorCodes, - statusCode: Int = HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError, + message: String, + code: ErrorCodes, + httpStatus: Int = HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError, )Apply similar documentation to other utility functions.
example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/MainActivity.kt (1)
79-105: LGTM! Consider documenting experimental API usage.The App composable implementation follows Compose best practices with proper state management and UI component organization.
Consider adding a comment explaining the experimental Material3 API usage and any potential future implications for maintenance.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt (2)
Line range hint
1-486: Consider test optimization and readability improvements.The test suite is comprehensive and well-structured. Consider these minor improvements:
- The concurrent test with 100,000 iterations might be excessive for CI environments. Consider reducing it to a smaller number (e.g., 10,000) to improve test execution time while still effectively testing concurrency.
- Consider extracting magic numbers like test iteration counts and delays into named constants for better maintainability.
Line range hint
1-486: Excellent test coverage for async room operations.The comprehensive test suite effectively validates the
AtomicCoroutineScopefunctionality that will be crucial for implementing async room get and release operations. The tests cover all essential scenarios:
- Mutual exclusivity ensures safe room state transitions
- Priority handling enables proper sequencing of room operations
- Cancellation support facilitates clean room release
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt (1)
242-242: Consider extracting common error handling patternThere's repeated code pattern across test cases where you set channel state and throw an error. Consider extracting this into a test utility function to improve maintainability and reduce duplication.
+ private fun simulateChannelError( + channel: Channel, + state: ChannelState, + errorInfo: ErrorInfo? = null + ) { + channel.setState(state, errorInfo) + errorInfo?.let { throw ablyException(it) } + ?: throw serverError("error attaching channel ${channel.name}") + }Usage example:
- channel.setState(ChannelState.suspended) - throw serverError("error attaching channel ${channel.name}") + simulateChannelError(channel, ChannelState.suspended)Also applies to: 273-273, 305-305, 344-344, 391-391
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (4)
Line range hint
261-284: Consider adding timeout for channel attachmentWhile the implementation is correct, consider adding a timeout mechanism to prevent indefinite waiting for channel attachment.
private suspend fun listenToChannelAttachOrFailure( contributor: ContributesToRoomLifecycle, -) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> +) = withTimeout(30_000) { // 30 seconds timeout + suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation ->
413-416: Consider handling concurrent modifications of pendingDiscontinuityEventsThe iteration and clearing of
pendingDiscontinuityEventsshould be protected against concurrent modifications.-for ((contributor, error) in pendingDiscontinuityEvents) { +val events = pendingDiscontinuityEvents.toMap() // Create a snapshot +for ((contributor, error) in events) {
475-480: Consider adding error context for better debuggingThe error handling could be improved by including more context about the failure.
val contributorError = lifeCycleErrorInfo( - "failed to detach ${contributor.featureName} feature${contributor.channel.errorMessage}", + "failed to detach ${contributor.featureName} feature (state: ${contributor.channel.state})${contributor.channel.errorMessage}", contributor.detachmentErrorCode, )
668-672: Consider adding debug logging for release operationsThe release operation is critical and would benefit from debug logging to aid in troubleshooting.
contributors.forEach { + _logger?.d("RoomLifecycleManager", "Releasing contributor: ${it.featureName}") it.release() } releaseInProgress = false +_logger?.d("RoomLifecycleManager", "Room released successfully") statusLifecycle.setStatus(RoomStatus.Released)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt(23 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt(3 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/TestUtils.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt(12 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/DetachTest.kt(6 hunks)example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/MainActivity.kt(5 hunks)example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/ui/PresencePopup.kt(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- example/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/example/ui/PresencePopup.kt
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#55
File: chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt:487-489
Timestamp: 2024-11-17T15:00:12.153Z
Learning: In `RoomLifecycleManager.kt` (Kotlin), within the `doChannelWindDown` method, it's intentional to use referential equality (`===`) to compare `contributor.channel` and `except?.channel` as per specification CHA-RL5a1.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#33
File: chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt:34-34
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:07:31.865Z
Learning: In test files, helper methods defined in `TestUtils.kt` within the same package can be used without explicit import.
🔇 Additional comments (14)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/TestUtils.kt (1)
90-92: Verify the dependencies used by the new utility functions.
Let's verify that the required dependencies (ablyException, ErrorCodes, HttpStatusCodes) are properly defined and accessible.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual implementation of ErrorCodes since we only found HttpStatusCodes in the output.
All required dependencies are properly defined and accessible
The verification confirms that all dependencies used by the new utility functions are properly defined and accessible:
ablyExceptionfunction is defined inUtils.ktwith correct overloads that accept the required parametersErrorCodesis defined as an enum class inErrorCodes.ktHttpStatusCodesis defined as an object inErrorCodes.kt
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for the existence of required dependencies
# Check for ablyException function
echo "Checking for ablyException function..."
rg -p "fun\s+ablyException" --type kotlin
# Check for ErrorCodes and HttpStatusCodes
echo "Checking for error code definitions..."
rg -p "object\s+(ErrorCodes|HttpStatusCodes)" --type kotlin
Length of output: 523
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check ErrorCodes content
echo "Checking ErrorCodes content..."
rg -p "class\s+ErrorCodes|object\s+ErrorCodes" --type kotlin -A 5
# Also verify the actual implementation of ablyException
echo "Checking ablyException implementation..."
cat "chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt"
Length of output: 7418
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Utils.kt (2)
3-16: LGTM! Imports are well-organized and necessary.
The new imports support the added coroutine functionality and Ably presence operations.
59-66: LGTM! Well-implemented presence get operations.
The implementation correctly uses Dispatchers.IO for blocking operations and handles both single and list parameter cases efficiently.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/AtomicCoroutineScopeTest.kt (1)
42-42: LGTM! Simplified error creation using the helper method.
The change to use clientError() helper method aligns with the codebase's testing utilities and makes the code more concise.
Let's verify the helper method exists in TestUtils:
✅ Verification successful
Helper method clientError() is correctly used and available in TestUtils
The clientError() helper method is defined in TestUtils.kt and returns an Ably exception with Bad Request status. The change to use this helper method in the test is valid and follows the established testing patterns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the clientError helper method exists in TestUtils
# Expected: Find the clientError function definition
ast-grep --pattern 'fun clientError($_): $_ { $$$ }'
Length of output: 54
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for clientError using ripgrep
rg "clientError" -A 2
Length of output: 773
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/DetachTest.kt (4)
1-14: LGTM! Package restructuring improves code organization
The move to a dedicated lifecycle package better reflects the component's responsibility and improves code organization.
221-221: LGTM! Consistent error handling implementation
The error handling implementation using ablyException maintains consistency across different failure scenarios.
Also applies to: 227-227, 276-276, 282-282
254-254: Verify impact of ContributesToRoomLifecycle migration
The type reference has been updated from ResolvedContributor to ContributesToRoomLifecycle. While this aligns with the broader refactoring, we should verify all usages are consistent.
Also applies to: 342-342
✅ Verification successful
Migration from ResolvedContributor to ContributesToRoomLifecycle is complete and consistent
The codebase scan shows that:
- There are no remaining references to
ResolvedContributor - All usages of
ContributesToRoomLifecycleare consistent across the codebase, including:- Interface definition and implementation in
RoomLifecycleManager.kt - Proper inheritance in feature implementations (Messages, Typing, Occupancy, etc.)
- Consistent usage in test files including
DetachTest.kt
- Interface definition and implementation in
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining ResolvedContributor references
rg "ResolvedContributor"
# Search for new ContributesToRoomLifecycle usage patterns
rg "ContributesToRoomLifecycle"
Length of output: 4676
165-165: Verify alignment with CHA-RS3 specification
The status assertion has been updated from Initializing to Initialized. While this aligns with the removal of the Initializing state, we should verify this change against the CHA-RS3 specification.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual RoomStatus enum definition to verify the states.
Status assertion change correctly aligns with CHA-RS3 specification
The change from Initializing to Initialized is correct as per the codebase. The RoomStatus.kt file shows that:
Initializedis a valid state defined in theRoomStatusenum (CHA-RS1a)DefaultRoomLifecycleexplicitly sets the initial status toRoomStatus.Initialized(CHA-RS3)- There is no
Initializingstate in the enum
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CHA-RS3 specification references and related status definitions
rg -A 5 "CHA-RS3"
rg "enum\s+class\s+RoomStatus"
Length of output: 2050
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of RoomStatus enum class
cat chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt
Length of output: 5644
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt (3)
96-96: LGTM: Status assertion updated correctly
The status assertion has been correctly updated to check for RoomStatus.Initialized which aligns with the room lifecycle specifications.
Line range hint 312-330: LGTM: Robust verification of contributor handling
The use of slot capture for verifying contributor handling is a good approach. It allows for precise verification of which contributor triggered the retry mechanism.
Line range hint 1-430: LGTM: Comprehensive test coverage for room attachment scenarios
The test suite thoroughly covers the room attachment lifecycle, including:
- Success scenarios
- Various failure modes
- State transitions
- Channel cleanup
- Retry mechanisms
This aligns well with the PR objectives for implementing async room operations.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (3)
80-80: LGTM: Type definitions are properly updated
The changes to DiscontinuityEventMap and RoomAttachmentResult correctly reflect the transition from ResolvedContributor to ContributesToRoomLifecycle.
Also applies to: 86-86, 95-96
Line range hint 199-234: LGTM: Robust retry mechanism with proper error handling
The retry implementation correctly handles various failure scenarios and state transitions.
Line range hint 500-566: LGTM: Comprehensive detachment implementation
The detachment implementation properly handles all states and includes appropriate error handling and retries.
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.enterClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> | ||
| enterClient( | ||
| clientId, | ||
| data, | ||
| object : CompletionListener { | ||
| override fun onSuccess() { | ||
| continuation.resume(Unit) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| override fun onError(reason: ErrorInfo?) { | ||
| continuation.resumeWithException(AblyException.fromErrorInfo(reason)) | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.updateClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> | ||
| updateClient( | ||
| clientId, | ||
| data, | ||
| object : CompletionListener { | ||
| override fun onSuccess() { | ||
| continuation.resume(Unit) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| override fun onError(reason: ErrorInfo?) { | ||
| continuation.resumeWithException(AblyException.fromErrorInfo(reason)) | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.leaveClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> | ||
| leaveClient( | ||
| clientId, | ||
| data, | ||
| object : CompletionListener { | ||
| override fun onSuccess() { | ||
| continuation.resume(Unit) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| override fun onError(reason: ErrorInfo?) { | ||
| continuation.resumeWithException(AblyException.fromErrorInfo(reason)) | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider handling coroutine cancellation cleanup.
While using suspendCancellableCoroutine is correct, the implementation should handle cleanup when the coroutine is cancelled. This ensures resources are properly released.
Here's how to handle cancellation for each client operation:
suspend fun PubSubPresence.enterClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation ->
+ continuation.invokeOnCancellation {
+ // Clean up any resources or cancel the ongoing operation if possible
+ }
enterClient(
clientId,
data,
object : CompletionListener {
// ... existing implementation
}
)
}Apply similar changes to updateClientCoroutine and leaveClientCoroutine.
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.getCoroutine(param: Param) = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) { | ||
| get(param) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Suppress("SpreadOperator") | ||
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.getCoroutine(params: List<Param>) = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) { | ||
| get(*params.toTypedArray()) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.enterClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> | ||
| enterClient( | ||
| clientId, | ||
| data, | ||
| object : CompletionListener { | ||
| override fun onSuccess() { | ||
| continuation.resume(Unit) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| override fun onError(reason: ErrorInfo?) { | ||
| continuation.resumeWithException(AblyException.fromErrorInfo(reason)) | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.updateClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> | ||
| updateClient( | ||
| clientId, | ||
| data, | ||
| object : CompletionListener { | ||
| override fun onSuccess() { | ||
| continuation.resume(Unit) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| override fun onError(reason: ErrorInfo?) { | ||
| continuation.resumeWithException(AblyException.fromErrorInfo(reason)) | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| suspend fun PubSubPresence.leaveClientCoroutine(clientId: String, data: JsonElement?) = suspendCancellableCoroutine { continuation -> | ||
| leaveClient( | ||
| clientId, | ||
| data, | ||
| object : CompletionListener { | ||
| override fun onSuccess() { | ||
| continuation.resume(Unit) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| override fun onError(reason: ErrorInfo?) { | ||
| continuation.resumeWithException(AblyException.fromErrorInfo(reason)) | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Additional test coverage needed for coroutine presence utilities
The test coverage is incomplete for the new coroutine utilities. While PresenceTest.kt covers the transformation and event handling aspects, it lacks direct testing of the coroutine extensions (enterClientCoroutine, updateClientCoroutine, leaveClientCoroutine, getCoroutine).
Key areas needing test coverage:
- Coroutine context switching (Dispatchers.IO)
- Error handling through
suspendCancellableCoroutine - Success and failure scenarios for presence operations
- Cancellation behavior
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify test coverage for new coroutine extensions and utilities.
These new utilities are critical for async room operations. Let's verify the test coverage.
Also applies to: 199-231
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for test coverage of the new utilities
# Look for test files covering these utilities
echo "Searching for relevant test files..."
fd -e kt -e java test
# Check for presence-related test coverage
echo "Checking presence-related test coverage..."
rg -l "enterClientCoroutine|updateClientCoroutine|leaveClientCoroutine"
# Check for lifecycle error handling test coverage
echo "Checking error handling test coverage..."
rg -l "lifeCycleErrorInfo|lifeCycleException|ablyException"
Length of output: 2241
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of PresenceTest.kt to verify test coverage
echo "Checking PresenceTest.kt content..."
cat "chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/PresenceTest.kt"
# Also check Presence.kt to understand how these coroutine utilities are used
echo -e "\nChecking Presence.kt implementation..."
cat "chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Presence.kt"
Length of output: 11740
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomTestHelpers.kt (3)
27-27: Consider extracting the test key to a constant.The mock creation looks good, but consider extracting
"id:key"to a constant for better maintainability.+private const val TEST_KEY = "id:key" -fun createMockRealtimeClient(): AblyRealtime = spyk(AblyRealtime(ClientOptions("id:key").apply { autoConnect = false })) +fun createMockRealtimeClient(): AblyRealtime = spyk(AblyRealtime(ClientOptions(TEST_KEY).apply { autoConnect = false }))
29-32: Consider adding KDoc comments explaining the test usage.The properties provide good access to internal state for testing. Consider adding documentation to explain their purpose and typical test scenarios.
+/** + * Test utilities for accessing internal room management state. + * Used to verify room lifecycle operations in tests. + */ // Rooms mocks val Rooms.RoomIdToRoom get() = getPrivateField<MutableMap<String, Room>>("roomIdToRoom")
50-63: Consider breaking down the mock creation for better reusability.The implementation is good but could benefit from separate functions for individual feature mocks to allow more flexible test setups.
+private fun createMessagesContributor(roomId: String, realtimeClient: AblyRealtime, chatApi: ChatApi): DefaultMessages = + spyk(DefaultMessages(roomId, realtimeClient.channels, chatApi), recordPrivateCalls = true) +private fun createPresenceContributor(messagesContributor: DefaultMessages): DefaultPresence = + spyk( + DefaultPresence("client1", messagesContributor.channel, messagesContributor.channel.presence), + recordPrivateCalls = true, + ) fun createRoomFeatureMocks(roomId: String = "1234"): List<ContributesToRoomLifecycle> { val realtimeClient = createMockRealtimeClient() val chatApi = mockk<ChatApi>(relaxed = true) - val messagesContributor = spyk(DefaultMessages(roomId, realtimeClient.channels, chatApi), recordPrivateCalls = true) - val presenceContributor = spyk( - DefaultPresence("client1", messagesContributor.channel, messagesContributor.channel.presence), - recordPrivateCalls = true, - ) + val messagesContributor = createMessagesContributor(roomId, realtimeClient, chatApi) + val presenceContributor = createPresenceContributor(messagesContributor)gradle/libs.versions.toml (1)
54-55: Good choice of Ktor client modulesThe selection of
ktor-client-coreandktor-client-ciois appropriate for implementing async operations. The CIO engine is lightweight and efficiently integrates with Kotlin coroutines.Consider documenting the rationale for choosing CIO over other engines (like OkHttp) in the project documentation, as this decision impacts the overall architecture.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomIntegrationTest.kt (3)
18-23: Consider adding tearDown method for cleanup.While the setup looks good, consider adding a
@Aftermethod to ensure proper cleanup of the sandbox instance after each test.+ @After + fun tearDown() = runTest { + sandbox.dispose() + }
80-102: Consider using parameterized tests for better coverage.The two test methods share similar structure and could be combined using parameterized tests. This would make it easier to add more test scenarios.
+ @ParameterizedTest + @MethodSource("clientFactories") + fun `should be able to Attach, Detach and Release Room`(clientFactory: suspend (Sandbox) -> ChatClient) = runTest { + val chatClient = clientFactory(sandbox) + // ... rest of the test + } + + companion object { + @JvmStatic + fun clientFactories() = Stream.of( + { sandbox: Sandbox -> sandbox.createSandboxChatClient() }, + { sandbox: Sandbox -> sandbox.getConnectedChatClient() } + ) + }Also, consider using more descriptive room IDs for better test debugging:
- val room1 = chatClient.rooms.get(UUID.randomUUID().toString()) + val room1 = chatClient.rooms.get("test-room-${UUID.randomUUID()}")
1-103: Consider adding more error scenario tests.While the current tests cover the happy path well, consider adding tests for error scenarios mentioned in the PR objectives:
- Room requested with different options
- Release operation in progress
- Room doesn't exist
Would you like me to help create additional test cases for these scenarios?
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt (1)
Line range hint
301-304: Consider addressing the race condition warningThe code contains a warning about a race condition that could lead to duplicated messages in
getPreviousMessagescalls. This could affect message consistency and user experience.Consider implementing one of these solutions:
- Use atomic operations or synchronized blocks to ensure thread safety
- Implement a message deduplication mechanism
- Add a retry mechanism with exponential backoff for failed operations
Would you like me to elaborate on any of these solutions?
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt (2)
82-87: Consider caching the app creation request body to improve performanceLoading the JSON from the remote URL every time
loadAppCreationRequestBody()is called can impact performance and lead to unnecessary network requests. Consider caching the result.Apply this diff to implement caching:
+private var cachedAppCreationRequestBody: JsonElement? = null private suspend fun loadAppCreationRequestBody(): JsonElement = + cachedAppCreationRequestBody ?: run { try { val responseText = client.get("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ably/ably-common/refs/heads/main/test-resources/test-app-setup.json") { contentType(ContentType.Application.Json) }.bodyAsText() val jsonElement = JsonParser.parseString(responseText).asJsonObject.get("post_apps") + cachedAppCreationRequestBody = jsonElement + jsonElement } catch (e: Exception) { // Handle exceptions appropriately throw RuntimeException("Failed to load app creation request body", e) } }
20-25: Specify a user agent for the HTTP clientAdding a custom user agent to the
HttpClientcan help with debugging and tracking requests on the server side.Apply this diff to set a user agent:
val client = HttpClient(CIO) { install(HttpRequestRetry) { retryOnServerErrors(maxRetries = 4) exponentialDelay() } + defaultRequest { + header("User-Agent", "AblyChatTestClient/1.0") + } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt(2 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomIntegrationTest.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomTestHelpers.kt(2 hunks)gradle/libs.versions.toml(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (12)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomTestHelpers.kt (4)
Line range hint 1-26: LGTM! Package organization and imports are well-structured.
The move to com.ably.chat.room package better reflects the module's purpose and improves code organization.
34-36: LGTM! Properties provide good access to lifecycle components.
The properties are well-named and provide appropriate access to internal lifecycle components for testing.
65-68: LGTM! Clear and focused state manipulation utility.
The implementation provides a clean way to manipulate channel state in tests.
41-48: Verify the impact of the contributor type change.
The implementation looks good and properly handles atomic operations. Let's verify the type change impact.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Type change from ResolvedContributor to ContributesToRoomLifecycle is safe and properly implemented
The search results confirm that:
- No references to the old
ResolvedContributortype exist in the codebase - The
ContributesToRoomLifecycletype is consistently used across the codebase, particularly in:- Room initialization for all feature contributors (messages, presence, typing, reactions, occupancy)
- Retry functionality in
RoomTestHelpers.ktandRetryTest.kt - Room lifecycle management and testing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any remaining uses of ResolvedContributor
rg "ResolvedContributor" --type kotlin
# Check for proper ContributesToRoomLifecycle usage
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : ContributesToRoomLifecycle'
Length of output: 99
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for contributor-related types and usages
rg "Contributor" --type kotlin -A 2
# Search for retry-related functionality
rg "retry" --type kotlin -A 2
# Look for the specific interface
fd "ContributesToRoomLifecycle.kt"
Length of output: 24816
gradle/libs.versions.toml (2)
57-59: LGTM! Good use of dependency bundling
Bundling the Ktor client dependencies makes it cleaner and easier to manage these related dependencies across modules.
6-6: Verify version compatibility
The addition of Ktor 3.0.x and update of Ably SDK should be verified for compatibility with the async room operations implementation.
Let's check the changelog and compatibility:
Also applies to: 23-23
✅ Verification successful
Ktor and Ably SDK versions are compatible and safely used
The version changes are safe because:
- Ktor 3.0.1 is only used in test code (
Sandbox.kt) - The Ably SDK version (1.2.45) remains unchanged from the previous version
- Ktor's changelog shows only bugfixes and improvements, no breaking changes that would affect the test usage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check Ktor and Ably SDK release notes for compatibility issues
# Check Ably SDK changelog
curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ably/ably-android/main/CHANGELOG.md | head -n 50
# Check Ktor releases for any breaking changes in 3.0.x
curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ktorio/ktor/main/CHANGELOG.md | head -n 50
Length of output: 5100
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual usage of Ktor in the codebase and verify the version change impact
# Find Ktor-related dependencies and their usage
rg -l "io\.ktor" --type kotlin
# Check for any Ktor client usage patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'HttpClient($$$)'
# Check the previous version of Ably SDK to understand the version change
git show HEAD~1:gradle/libs.versions.toml | grep "ably ="
Length of output: 285
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/RoomIntegrationTest.kt (1)
1-17: LGTM! Well-organized imports and class structure.
The imports are properly organized and include all necessary dependencies for room integration testing.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Messages.kt (2)
252-252: LGTM: Improved channel state handling
The additional check !it.resumed ensures channel serials are only updated when necessary, preventing unnecessary updates during channel resume. This improvement helps maintain message consistency.
228-228: Verify the lifecycle management refactoring impact
The removal of the contributor parameter and extension of ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl aligns with the PR's room lifecycle management improvements. However, we should verify that all components using DefaultMessages have been updated accordingly.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can see that all DefaultMessages instantiations have been properly updated to match the new constructor signature without the contributor parameter. The search results show four locations where DefaultMessages is instantiated:
MessagesTest.kt: Direct instantiation in testRoom.kt: Main implementation instantiationMessages.kt: The class definition itselfRoomTestHelpers.kt: Test helper instantiation
None of these locations show any remaining usage of the removed contributor parameter. The remaining contributor references in the codebase are all related to the room lifecycle management system (RoomLifecycleManager.kt and related test files), which is the intended architecture as per the PR objectives.
Lifecycle management refactoring is correctly implemented
The removal of the contributor parameter and extension of ContributesToRoomLifecycleImpl has been properly implemented across all usages of DefaultMessages. The change aligns with the standardized room lifecycle management system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all DefaultMessages instantiations have been updated
# and check for any remaining contributor references
# Search for DefaultMessages instantiations
echo "Checking DefaultMessages instantiations:"
rg "DefaultMessages\(" -A 3
# Search for any remaining contributor references in related files
echo "Checking for remaining contributor references:"
rg "contributor" --type kotlin
Length of output: 25917
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/Sandbox.kt (3)
38-39:
Verify the size of the keys array before accessing index 5
Accessing keys[5] assumes that the array has at least six elements. If the array is shorter, it will result in an IndexOutOfBoundsException. Ensure that the array has the expected length before accessing.
Apply this diff to add a size check:
val body = JsonParser.parseString(response.bodyAsText())
+val keysArray = body.asJsonObject["keys"].asJsonArray
+if (keysArray.size() <= 5) {
+ throw RuntimeException("Unexpected keys array size: ${keysArray.size()}")
+}
return Sandbox(
appId = body.asJsonObject["appId"].asString,
- apiKey = body.asJsonObject["keys"].asJsonArray[5].asJsonObject["keyStr"].asString,
+ apiKey = keysArray[5].asJsonObject["keyStr"].asString,
)Likely invalid or redundant comment.
82-87: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for network request and JSON parsing
The loadAppCreationRequestBody() function performs a network request to load JSON data without handling potential exceptions, which could lead to unhandled exceptions if the request fails or the data is malformed.
Apply this diff to include error handling:
private suspend fun loadAppCreationRequestBody(): JsonElement =
- JsonParser.parseString(
- client.get("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ably/ably-common/refs/heads/main/test-resources/test-app-setup.json") {
- contentType(ContentType.Application.Json)
- }.bodyAsText(),
- ).asJsonObject.get("post_apps")
+ try {
+ JsonParser.parseString(
+ client.get("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ably/ably-common/refs/heads/main/test-resources/test-app-setup.json") {
+ contentType(ContentType.Application.Json)
+ }.bodyAsText(),
+ ).asJsonObject.get("post_apps")
+ } catch (e: Exception) {
+ // Handle exceptions appropriately
+ throw RuntimeException("Failed to load app creation request body", e)
+ }Likely invalid or redundant comment.
27-43: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding error handling for HTTP requests and JSON parsing
The createInstance() function performs a network request and parses the JSON response without error handling. If the request fails or the response is malformed, it could cause unhandled exceptions.
Apply this diff to include exception handling:
suspend fun createInstance(): Sandbox {
- val response: HttpResponse = client.post("https://sandbox-rest.ably.io/apps") {
- contentType(ContentType.Application.Json)
- setBody(loadAppCreationRequestBody().toString())
- }
- val body = JsonParser.parseString(response.bodyAsText())
+ return try {
+ val response: HttpResponse = client.post("https://sandbox-rest.ably.io/apps") {
+ contentType(ContentType.Application.Json)
+ setBody(loadAppCreationRequestBody().toString())
+ }
+ val body = JsonParser.parseString(response.bodyAsText())
+
+ Sandbox(
+ appId = body.asJsonObject["appId"].asString,
+ apiKey = body.asJsonObject["keys"].asJsonArray[5].asJsonObject["keyStr"].asString,
+ )
+ } catch (e: Exception) {
+ // Handle exceptions appropriately
+ throw RuntimeException("Failed to create Sandbox instance", e)
+ }
-
- return Sandbox(
- appId = body.asJsonObject["appId"].asString,
- apiKey = body.asJsonObject["keys"].asJsonArray[5].asJsonObject["keyStr"].asString,
- )
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| [plugins] | ||
| detekt = { id = "io.gitlab.arturbosch.detekt", version.ref = "detekt"} | ||
| android-kotlin = { id = "org.jetbrains.kotlin.android", version.ref = "kotlin" } | ||
| android-kotlin = { id = "org.jetbrains.kotlin.android", version = "2.0.21" } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using version reference instead of hard-coded version
The Android Kotlin plugin version is hard-coded to "2.0.21" instead of using a version reference like other dependencies. This makes version management less maintainable.
Consider using a version reference instead:
-android-kotlin = { id = "org.jetbrains.kotlin.android", version = "2.0.21" }
+android-kotlin = { id = "org.jetbrains.kotlin.android", version.ref = "kotlin" }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| private suspend fun validateAllOps(room: Room, chatClient: ChatClient) { | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Initialized, room.status) | ||
|
|
||
| // Listen for underlying state changes | ||
| val stateChanges = mutableListOf<RoomStatusChange>() | ||
| room.onStatusChange { | ||
| stateChanges.add(it) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Perform attach operation | ||
| room.attach() | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, room.status) | ||
|
|
||
| // Perform detach operation | ||
| room.detach() | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Detached, room.status) | ||
|
|
||
| // Perform release operation | ||
| chatClient.rooms.release(room.roomId) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, room.status) | ||
|
|
||
| assertWaiter { room.LifecycleManager.atomicCoroutineScope().finishedProcessing } | ||
|
|
||
| Assert.assertEquals(5, stateChanges.size) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attaching, stateChanges[0].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, stateChanges[1].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Detaching, stateChanges[2].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Detached, stateChanges[3].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, stateChanges[4].current) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add timeout handling for room operations.
The validateAllOps method should include timeout handling for room operations to prevent tests from hanging indefinitely if state transitions fail.
- room.attach()
+ withTimeout(5000) {
+ room.attach()
+ }Also, consider extracting the expected state count and transitions into constants for better maintainability:
+ companion object {
+ private const val ALL_OPS_STATE_CHANGES = 5
+ private val ALL_OPS_STATES = listOf(
+ RoomStatus.Attaching,
+ RoomStatus.Attached,
+ RoomStatus.Detaching,
+ RoomStatus.Detached,
+ RoomStatus.Released
+ )
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| private suspend fun validateAttachAndRelease(room: Room, chatClient: ChatClient) { | ||
| // Listen for underlying state changes | ||
| val stateChanges = mutableListOf<RoomStatusChange>() | ||
| room.onStatusChange { | ||
| stateChanges.add(it) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Perform attach operation | ||
| room.attach() | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, room.status) | ||
|
|
||
| // Perform release operation | ||
| chatClient.rooms.release(room.roomId) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, room.status) | ||
|
|
||
| assertWaiter { room.LifecycleManager.atomicCoroutineScope().finishedProcessing } | ||
|
|
||
| Assert.assertEquals(4, stateChanges.size) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attaching, stateChanges[0].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, stateChanges[1].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Releasing, stateChanges[2].current) | ||
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, stateChanges[3].current) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider thread-safety for state change collection.
The state change collection might be accessed from different coroutines. Consider using a thread-safe collection.
- val stateChanges = mutableListOf<RoomStatusChange>()
+ val stateChanges = Collections.synchronizedList(mutableListOf<RoomStatusChange>())📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private suspend fun validateAttachAndRelease(room: Room, chatClient: ChatClient) { | |
| // Listen for underlying state changes | |
| val stateChanges = mutableListOf<RoomStatusChange>() | |
| room.onStatusChange { | |
| stateChanges.add(it) | |
| } | |
| // Perform attach operation | |
| room.attach() | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, room.status) | |
| // Perform release operation | |
| chatClient.rooms.release(room.roomId) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, room.status) | |
| assertWaiter { room.LifecycleManager.atomicCoroutineScope().finishedProcessing } | |
| Assert.assertEquals(4, stateChanges.size) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attaching, stateChanges[0].current) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, stateChanges[1].current) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Releasing, stateChanges[2].current) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, stateChanges[3].current) | |
| } | |
| private suspend fun validateAttachAndRelease(room: Room, chatClient: ChatClient) { | |
| // Listen for underlying state changes | |
| val stateChanges = Collections.synchronizedList(mutableListOf<RoomStatusChange>()) | |
| room.onStatusChange { | |
| stateChanges.add(it) | |
| } | |
| // Perform attach operation | |
| room.attach() | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, room.status) | |
| // Perform release operation | |
| chatClient.rooms.release(room.roomId) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, room.status) | |
| assertWaiter { room.LifecycleManager.atomicCoroutineScope().finishedProcessing } | |
| Assert.assertEquals(4, stateChanges.size) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attaching, stateChanges[0].current) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Attached, stateChanges[1].current) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Releasing, stateChanges[2].current) | |
| Assert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Released, stateChanges[3].current) | |
| } |
| private suspend fun AblyRealtime.ensureConnected() { | ||
| if (this.connection.state == ConnectionState.connected) { | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
| val connectedDeferred = CompletableDeferred<Unit>() | ||
| this.connection.on { | ||
| if (it.event == ConnectionEvent.connected) { | ||
| connectedDeferred.complete(Unit) | ||
| } else if (it.event != ConnectionEvent.connecting) { | ||
| connectedDeferred.completeExceptionally(serverError("ably connection failed")) | ||
| this.connection.off() | ||
| this.close() | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| connectedDeferred.await() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure removal of the connection listener to prevent memory leaks
In the ensureConnected() function, the connection listener added with this.connection.on is not removed upon successful connection. This could lead to a memory leak due to lingering listeners.
Apply this diff to remove the listener after the connection is established:
private suspend fun AblyRealtime.ensureConnected() {
if (this.connection.state == ConnectionState.connected) {
return
}
val connectedDeferred = CompletableDeferred<Unit>()
val listener = this.connection.on {
if (it.event == ConnectionEvent.connected) {
connectedDeferred.complete(Unit)
+ this.connection.off(listener)
} else if (it.event != ConnectionEvent.connecting) {
connectedDeferred.completeExceptionally(serverError("ably connection failed"))
this.connection.off(listener)
this.close()
}
}
connectedDeferred.await()
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private suspend fun AblyRealtime.ensureConnected() { | |
| if (this.connection.state == ConnectionState.connected) { | |
| return | |
| } | |
| val connectedDeferred = CompletableDeferred<Unit>() | |
| this.connection.on { | |
| if (it.event == ConnectionEvent.connected) { | |
| connectedDeferred.complete(Unit) | |
| } else if (it.event != ConnectionEvent.connecting) { | |
| connectedDeferred.completeExceptionally(serverError("ably connection failed")) | |
| this.connection.off() | |
| this.close() | |
| } | |
| } | |
| connectedDeferred.await() | |
| } | |
| private suspend fun AblyRealtime.ensureConnected() { | |
| if (this.connection.state == ConnectionState.connected) { | |
| return | |
| } | |
| val connectedDeferred = CompletableDeferred<Unit>() | |
| val listener = this.connection.on { | |
| if (it.event == ConnectionEvent.connected) { | |
| connectedDeferred.complete(Unit) | |
| this.connection.off(listener) | |
| } else if (it.event != ConnectionEvent.connecting) { | |
| connectedDeferred.completeExceptionally(serverError("ably connection failed")) | |
| this.connection.off(listener) | |
| this.close() | |
| } | |
| } | |
| connectedDeferred.await() | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt (4)
Line range hint
1-28: Consider organizing imports by categoryThe imports could be better organized into logical groups (e.g., internal Ably imports, external library imports, Kotlin imports) for better readability.
90-92: Consider extracting common test setupThere's repeated code setting the initial status to
RoomStatus.Attached. Consider extracting this into a helper function or using a test fixture to reduce duplication.+ private fun createAttachedStatusLifecycle(): DefaultRoomLifecycle = + spyk<DefaultRoomLifecycle>().apply { + setStatus(RoomStatus.Attached) + } - val statusLifecycle = spyk<DefaultRoomLifecycle>().apply { - setStatus(RoomStatus.Attached) - } + val statusLifecycle = createAttachedStatusLifecycle()Also applies to: 114-116, 147-149, 181-184, 221-223, 267-269, 313-316
282-282: Consider using a more idiomatic way to capture released channelsThe current approach using a mutable list could be replaced with a more functional approach using Kotlin's sequence or flow APIs.
- val releasedChannels = mutableListOf<io.ably.lib.realtime.Channel>() - for (contributor in contributors) { - every { contributor.release() } answers { - releasedChannels.add(contributor.channel) - } - } + val releasedChannels = contributors.map { contributor -> + every { contributor.release() } answers { + contributor.channel + } + contributor.channel + }
Line range hint
1-371: Comprehensive test coverage for async room release operationsThe test suite effectively covers the async room release functionality with:
- Various room states and transitions
- Error handling and recovery
- Resource cleanup
- Concurrent operation handling
This aligns well with the PR objectives for implementing async room operations.
Consider adding the following test scenarios:
- Timeout handling for long-running release operations
- Memory leak detection for long-running tests
- Load testing with multiple concurrent release operations
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (3)
Line range hint
192-227: Consider adding error logging in the retry mechanism.The retry mechanism in
doRetryis well-implemented with proper error handling. However, it would be beneficial to add debug logging before retries to help with troubleshooting.while (result.isFailure) { + _logger?.d("RoomLifecycleManager", "Retry failed, attempting again after ${retryDurationInMs}ms") if (this.statusLifecycle.status === RoomStatus.Failed) {
Line range hint
322-409: Consider implementing retry backoff strategy.The current implementation uses a fixed retry duration. Consider implementing an exponential backoff strategy for retries to prevent overwhelming the system during persistent failures.
- private val retryDurationInMs: Long = 250 + private var retryDurationInMs: Long = 250 + private val maxRetryDurationInMs: Long = 5000 + + private fun updateRetryDuration() { + retryDurationInMs = (retryDurationInMs * 1.5).toLong().coerceAtMost(maxRetryDurationInMs) + }
Line range hint
493-559: Consider adding state transition validation.The detachment process handles various states, but it might benefit from a more formal state transition validation to prevent invalid state changes.
+ private fun isValidTransition(from: RoomStatus, to: RoomStatus): Boolean { + return when (from) { + RoomStatus.Attached -> to in setOf(RoomStatus.Detaching, RoomStatus.Failed) + RoomStatus.Detaching -> to in setOf(RoomStatus.Detached, RoomStatus.Failed) + else -> false + } + }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt(22 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt(1 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt(9 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#55
File: chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt:487-489
Timestamp: 2024-11-17T15:00:12.153Z
Learning: In `RoomLifecycleManager.kt` (Kotlin), within the `doChannelWindDown` method, it's intentional to use referential equality (`===`) to compare `contributor.channel` and `except?.channel` as per specification CHA-RL5a1.
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt (1)
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#54
File: chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/ReleaseTest.kt:270-274
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T19:17:01.976Z
Learning: In `ReleaseTest.kt`, randomness is intentionally used in tests to verify that the release operation behaves the same across different channel states.
🔇 Additional comments (9)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt (3)
175-175: Verify thread-safety of status transitions in async context
Since this is part of implementing async room operations, we should ensure thread-safe status transitions, especially during initialization and cleanup phases.
Consider the following recommendations:
- Ensure
setStatusoperations are atomic to prevent race conditions - Consider using a mutex or synchronized block for status transitions
- Document the thread-safety guarantees in the class documentation
Let's check for concurrent access protections:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response:
Thread-safety is properly implemented for status transitions
The codebase shows robust thread-safety implementation for status transitions through:
- Usage of
AtomicCoroutineScopethat ensures mutual exclusion for all operations - Synchronized access to shared state with
@Synchronizedannotations - Proper queuing and prioritization of lifecycle operations
- Sequential execution of status transitions within atomic scope
The status field is protected by:
- Atomic operations through
AtomicCoroutineScope.async() - Synchronized access methods
- Priority-based execution queue
- Proper cancellation handling
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for synchronization mechanisms
echo "Searching for synchronization implementations..."
rg -B 5 -A 5 "@Synchronized|synchronized|Mutex|volatile" --type kotlin
# Look for potential concurrent access patterns
echo "Searching for concurrent operation patterns..."
rg -B 5 -A 5 "coroutineScope|async|launch|withContext" --type kotlin
Length of output: 103457
175-175: Verify specification compliance for initial room state
The change to initialize _status with RoomStatus.Initialized aligns with specification CHA-RS1a which defines it as "A temporary state for when the library is first initialized". However, we should verify the complete state transition flow.
Let's analyze the state transition implementations:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response as I have sufficient information about the state transitions and specification compliance.
Initial state of RoomStatus.Initialized is correctly implemented
The change to initialize _status with RoomStatus.Initialized is verified to be compliant with specifications and state transition logic:
- Test
DetachTest.ktconfirms CHA-RS3 compliance withAssert.assertEquals(RoomStatus.Initialized, statusLifecycle.status) - State transitions from
Initializedare properly handled:- CHA-RL3j: Direct transition to
Releasedstate is supported - CHA-RL1e: Transition to
Attachingstate during attach operation
- CHA-RL3j: Direct transition to
- No regressions in state machine as evidenced by comprehensive test coverage of all transitions:
Initialized -> Attaching -> Attached -> Detaching -> Detached -> Released
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for state transition logic to verify compliance with CHA-RS specifications
echo "Searching for state transition implementations..."
rg -A 5 "setStatus\(" --type kotlin
# Search for test coverage of state transitions
echo "Searching for state transition tests..."
rg -A 5 "RoomStatus\." --type kotlin --glob "*Test.kt"
Length of output: 91096
175-175: Verify complete specification coverage
The initialization change appears to comply with CHA-RS1a, but we should verify that all CHA-RS specifications are properly implemented, especially around state transitions.
Let's analyze specification coverage:
✅ Verification successful
The previous output showed the presence of all CHA-RS specifications, but we need to verify their actual implementations and state transition handling. This script will help us examine the complete RoomStatus implementation and its test coverage.
Initial state handling complies with all specifications
The implementation fully complies with all CHA-RS specifications:
- CHA-RS1: All room states are properly defined in the enum class with clear documentation
- CHA-RS2: Status and error handling are properly implemented in RoomLifecycle interface
- CHA-RS3: Initial state is correctly set to
Initializedin DefaultRoomLifecycle - CHA-RS4: Status changes are properly tracked through RoomStatusChange data class
The test coverage confirms proper state transitions and handling across all specifications:
- Initial state verification (CHA-RS3)
- State transition validations
- Error handling during transitions
- Event emission for state changes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all CHA-RS specifications in the codebase
echo "Searching for CHA-RS specifications..."
rg "CHA-RS\d+" --type kotlin
# Search for corresponding implementations
echo "Searching for specification implementations..."
for spec in $(rg -o "CHA-RS\d+" --type kotlin | sort -u); do
echo "Checking implementation for $spec..."
rg -B 5 -A 5 "$spec" --type kotlin
done
Length of output: 4208
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's get more context about the RoomStatus implementation and state transitions
echo "Checking RoomStatus.kt implementation..."
cat chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt
# Also check the test implementations to verify state handling
echo -e "\nChecking state transition tests..."
rg -B 3 -A 3 "RoomStatus\." --type kotlin chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/
Length of output: 60363
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/ReleaseTest.kt (2)
Line range hint 29-39: LGTM! Good test setup for async operations
The use of a single-threaded coroutine scope with a named dispatcher is a good practice for testing async operations, ensuring deterministic behavior.
306-306: LGTM! Good verification of release calls
The verification ensures that each contributor's release method is called exactly once, which is crucial for preventing resource leaks.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (4)
Line range hint 80-96: LGTM! Type definitions are clear and well-documented.
The type alias and interface definitions are well-structured and properly documented. The DiscontinuityEventMap and RoomAttachmentResult interface provide clear contracts for the implementation.
Line range hint 575-642: LGTM! Release implementation follows specifications.
The release implementation properly follows the CHA-RL3 specifications with appropriate error handling and state management. The cleanup of contributors is handled correctly.
Line range hint 254-277: Potential race condition in channel state checks.
The channel state checks after setting up listeners could lead to race conditions. Consider using a more atomic approach to handle state transitions.
Line range hint 438-473: Ensure proper cleanup of resources during wind down.
The channel wind down implementation looks solid, but we should ensure proper cleanup of any associated resources.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the cleanup process by checking the implementation of resource cleanup in the codebase.
Let me check the implementation of channel detachment and cleanup in the codebase.
Based on the analysis of the code and test files, I can now provide a final response about the cleanup of resources during wind down.
The channel wind down implementation properly handles resource cleanup.
The implementation shows robust resource management with:
- Proper detachment of channels using
detachCoroutine()with error handling - Release of underlying Realtime Channels to prevent leakage (comment CHA-RL3h)
- Proper state transitions through Releasing -> Released
- Comprehensive error handling for failed states
- Cleanup of all contributors through their respective
release()methods
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential resource leaks in wind down scenarios
rg -A 5 "release\(\)" | grep -v "fun release"
Length of output: 20836
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for cleanup implementations in contributors and lifecycle related files
ast-grep --pattern 'fun detachCoroutine() {
$$$
}'
# Check for any resource cleanup patterns
rg -A 5 "cleanup|dispose|close" --type kotlin
Length of output: 2417
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for channel detachment and cleanup implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'channel.detachCoroutine()'
# Check for any error handling during cleanup
rg -A 10 "detachCoroutine" --type kotlin
Length of output: 33915
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt (2)
223-223: Enhance error message clarity in discontinuity detection.Consider adding more context to the error message by including the contributor type and the specific reason for discontinuity.
-contributor.discontinuityDetected(any<ErrorInfo>()) +contributor.discontinuityDetected(match { error -> + error.message?.contains("${contributor.featureName} feature discontinuity") == true +})
374-374: Make channel wind down verification more specific.The verification could be more explicit about what's being checked during the channel wind down process.
-roomLifecycle["doChannelWindDown"](any<ContributesToRoomLifecycle>()) +roomLifecycle["doChannelWindDown"](match { contributor -> + contributor.channel.state != ChannelState.failed +})Also applies to: 426-426
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt(12 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt (4)
204-209: Avoid direct manipulation of private fields.
319-319: Replace delay with virtual time control.
246-246: LGTM: Consistent error handling implementation.
The error throwing mechanism is consistently implemented across different test cases, with appropriate error messages and context.
Also applies to: 277-277, 309-309, 348-348, 395-395
99-99: LGTM: Status assertion aligned with new state model.
The assertion change correctly reflects the removal of the Initializing state from the room status model.
…async-get # Conflicts: # chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/room/lifecycle/AttachTest.kt
rooms.getandrooms.release#51TODO's
Room GET
Room Release
Room options
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
PresencePopupUI for managing chat presence.RoomOptions, including validation logic.Sandboxclass for creating a sandbox environment for chat applications.Improvements
DefaultMessages,DefaultOccupancy, andDefaultRoomReactionsclasses by removing unnecessary properties.Roommanagement to support asynchronous operations using coroutines.MainActivityto improve UI structure and interactivity.RoomStatusmanagement by removing theInitializingstate.Bug Fixes
Tests