@Test
public void testMergeAsyncThenObserveOnLoop() {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
if (i % 10 == 0) {
System.out.println("testMergeAsyncThenObserveOnLoop >> " + i);
}
// Verify there is no MissingBackpressureException
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.observeOn(Schedulers.io()).take(NUM).subscribe(ts);
ts.awaitTerminalEvent(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
ts.assertComplete();
ts.assertNoErrors();
System.out.println(
"testMergeAsyncThenObserveOn => Received: "
+ ts.valueCount()
+ " Emitted: "
+ c1.get()
+ " / "
+ c2.get());
assertEquals(NUM, ts.valueCount());
}
}
@Test
public void testMergeAsyncThenObserveOn() {
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.observeOn(Schedulers.newThread()).take(NUM).subscribe(ts);
ts.awaitTerminalEvent();
ts.assertNoErrors();
System.out.println(
"testMergeAsyncThenObserveOn => 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
// akarnokd => run this in a loop over 10k times and never saw values get as high as 7*SIZE, but
// since observeOn delays the unsubscription non-deterministically, the test will remain
// unreliable
assertTrue(c1.get() < Observable.bufferSize() * 7);
assertTrue(c2.get() < Observable.bufferSize() * 7);
}
@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);
}
