{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302/events","html_url":"https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302","id":352177809,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzNTIxNzc4MDk=","number":302,"title":"CircuitBreakerTest.testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold, CircuitBreakerTest.testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold, and CircuitBreakerTest.testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold tests need splitting up.","user":{"login":"Pandrex247","id":7734850,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjc3MzQ4NTA=","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/7734850?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247","html_url":"https://github.com/Pandrex247","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":1,"created_at":"2018-08-20T15:08:26Z","updated_at":"2018-08-20T16:14:28Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"CONTRIBUTOR","body":"These three tests all check the behaviour of a circuit breaker as it \"fills up\". Individually they are fine, but when you run all of the test methods sequentially (such as what would happen if you used _mvn clean test_) these three tests foul each other up. This is due to each of them using the same bean class and method and expecting it to have a \"clean\" circuit breaker - as in, an unused one.\r\n\r\nSo when running them sequentially (in typical alphabetical order), you can end up with the following:\r\n\r\n1. _testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold_ runs successfully, leaving the circuit in an open state.\r\n2. _testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold_ runs. The circuit is either in an open or half-open state depending on how quickly this starts. This can lead to either a _CircuitBreakerOpenException_ on the first request, or the first request being used to close the circuit again, and then the test failing on the fifth iteration as it expects a _CircuitBreakerOpenException_ which it won't get as this fifth request is the request which actually opens the circuit. This leaves the circuit in an open state.\r\n3. _testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold_ runs. The circuit is, again, either in an open or half-open state depending on how quickly this starts, leading to it failing in a similar manner to point 2.\r\n\r\nAs far as I understand it, this is expected behaviour as the circuit shouldn't be getting reset due to the requests from each of these tests going to the same deployment of the same application."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/comments/414374417","html_url":"https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302#issuecomment-414374417","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/302","id":414374417,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQxNDM3NDQxNw==","user":{"login":"Pandrex247","id":7734850,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjc3MzQ4NTA=","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/7734850?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247","html_url":"https://github.com/Pandrex247","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Pandrex247/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-08-20T16:14:28Z","updated_at":"2018-08-20T16:14:28Z","author_association":"CONTRIBUTOR","body":"Is it expected behaviour then that if you have two instances of the same bean that they don't share the same circuit breaker?\r\n\r\nAs I understood the spec the annotations were tied to the actual methods, so that each instance of a bean that calls an annotated method would share the same circuit breaker."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"Pandrex247"}}