@Test
public void testMergeSync() {
int NUM = (int) (RxRingBuffer.SIZE * 4.1);
AtomicInteger c1 = new AtomicInteger();
AtomicInteger c2 = new AtomicInteger();
TestSubscriber<Integer> ts = new TestSubscriber<Integer>();
Observable<Integer> merged =
Observable.merge(incrementingIntegers(c1), incrementingIntegers(c2));
merged.take(NUM).subscribe(ts);
ts.awaitTerminalEvent();
ts.assertNoErrors();
System.out.println("Expected: " + NUM + " got: " + ts.getOnNextEvents().size());
System.out.println(
"testMergeSync => Received: "
+ ts.getOnNextEvents().size()
+ " Emitted: "
+ c1.get()
+ " / "
+ c2.get());
assertEquals(NUM, ts.getOnNextEvents().size());
// either one can starve the other, but neither should be capable of doing more than 5 batches
// (taking 4.1)
// TODO is it possible to make this deterministic rather than one possibly starving the other?
// benjchristensen => In general I'd say it's not worth trying to make it so, as "fair"
// algoritms generally take a performance hit
assertTrue(c1.get() < RxRingBuffer.SIZE * 5);
assertTrue(c2.get() < RxRingBuffer.SIZE * 5);
}
@Test
public void testZipAsync() {
int NUM = (int) (RxRingBuffer.SIZE * 2.1);
AtomicInteger c1 = new AtomicInteger();
AtomicInteger c2 = new AtomicInteger();
TestSubscriber<Integer> ts = new TestSubscriber<Integer>();
Observable<Integer> zipped =
Observable.zip(
incrementingIntegers(c1).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation()),
incrementingIntegers(c2).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation()),
new Func2<Integer, Integer, Integer>() {
@Override
public Integer call(Integer t1, Integer t2) {
return t1 + t2;
}
});
zipped.take(NUM).subscribe(ts);
ts.awaitTerminalEvent();
ts.assertNoErrors();
System.out.println(
"testZipAsync => Received: "
+ ts.getOnNextEvents().size()
+ " Emitted: "
+ c1.get()
+ " / "
+ c2.get());
assertEquals(NUM, ts.getOnNextEvents().size());
assertTrue(c1.get() < RxRingBuffer.SIZE * 3);
assertTrue(c2.get() < RxRingBuffer.SIZE * 3);
}
@Test
public void testZipAsync() {
int NUM = (int) (Observable.bufferSize() * 2.1);
AtomicInteger c1 = new AtomicInteger();
AtomicInteger c2 = new AtomicInteger();
TestSubscriber<Integer> ts = new TestSubscriber<>();
Observable<Integer> zipped =
Observable.zip(
incrementingIntegers(c1).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation()),
incrementingIntegers(c2).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation()),
(t1, t2) -> t1 + t2);
zipped.take(NUM).subscribe(ts);
ts.awaitTerminalEvent();
ts.assertNoErrors();
System.out.println(
"testZipAsync => Received: "
+ ts.valueCount()
+ " Emitted: "
+ c1.get()
+ " / "
+ c2.get());
assertEquals(NUM, ts.valueCount());
int max = Observable.bufferSize() * 5;
assertTrue("" + c1.get() + " >= " + max, c1.get() < max);
assertTrue("" + c2.get() + " >= " + max, c2.get() < max);
}
@Test
public void testMergeAsync() {
int NUM = (int) (Observable.bufferSize() * 4.1);
AtomicInteger c1 = new AtomicInteger();
AtomicInteger c2 = new AtomicInteger();
TestSubscriber<Integer> ts = new TestSubscriber<>();
Observable<Integer> merged =
Observable.merge(
incrementingIntegers(c1).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation()),
incrementingIntegers(c2).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation()));
merged.take(NUM).subscribe(ts);
ts.awaitTerminalEvent();
ts.assertNoErrors();
System.out.println(
"testMergeAsync => Received: "
+ ts.valueCount()
+ " Emitted: "
+ c1.get()
+ " / "
+ c2.get());
assertEquals(NUM, ts.valueCount());
// either one can starve the other, but neither should be capable of doing more than 5 batches
// (taking 4.1)
// TODO is it possible to make this deterministic rather than one possibly starving the other?
// benjchristensen => In general I'd say it's not worth trying to make it so, as "fair"
// algoritms generally take a performance hit
int max = Observable.bufferSize() * 7;
assertTrue("" + c1.get() + " >= " + max, c1.get() < max);
assertTrue("" + c2.get() + " >= " + max, c2.get() < max);
}
@Test
public void testTakeFirstOfNone() {
Observable<Integer> observable = Observable.empty();
observable.take(1).subscribe(w);
verify(w, never()).onNext(anyInt());
verify(w, times(1)).onComplete();
verify(w, never()).onError(any(Throwable.class));
}