DDevelopment & Design

SortedSet + Joda DateTime == danger

  • bympr
  • February 16, 2013
  • 2 minute read
It’s been quite a long time since I wrote something on this blog… Two things occurred that made me do this. Firstly, I’m going to talk at Java Developer’s Conference in Cairo and at Booster conference in Bergen next month, so I want to have some co…

It’s been quite a long time since I wrote something on this blog… Two things occurred that made me do this.
Firstly, I’m going to talk at Java Developer’s Conference in Cairo and at Booster conference in Bergen next month, so I want to have some content when I put a link at my slides ;)
Secondly, last week I encountered really weird situation. In fact it was endless loop.
Yep.
In was in rather critical place of our app and it was on semi-production environment so it was quite embarassing. What’s more, the code was working before, it was untouched for about half a year, and it had pretty good test coverage. It looked more or less like this (I’ve left some stuff out, so now it looks too complex for it’s task):

def findDates(dates:SortedSet[DateTime],a:List[DateTime])=
  if (dates.isEmpty || dates.head.toMilis < date) {
    (dates, a)
  } else {
    findDates(dates - dates.head, a+dates.head)
  }

Just simple tail recursion, how can it loop endlessly? It turns out it can. Actually, for some specific data dates – dates.head == dates.
Why? The reason is DateTime is not consistent with equals. If you look into Comparable definition, it says:

It is strongly recommended (though not required) that natural orderings be consistent with equals. This is so because sorted sets (and sorted maps) without explicit comparators behave “strangely” when they are used with elements (or keys) whose natural ordering is inconsistent with equals. In particular, such a sorted set (or sorted map) violates the general contract for set (or map), which is defined in terms of the equals method.

What does this mean? That you should only use sorted collections for classes that satisfy following:if a.compareTo(b) == 0 then a.equals(b) == true And in joda’s DateTime javadoc you can read:

Compares this object with the specified object for ascending millisecond instant order. This ordering is inconsistent with equals, as it ignores the Chronology.

And it turns out that this was our case – in our data there were dates that were equal with respect to miliseconds, but in different timezones. What’s more, not every pair of such dates can lead to disaster. They have to cause some mess in underlying black-red tree… The solution was to introduce some wrapper (we used it anyway actually) that defined comparison consistent with equality…

— Previous article

<!--:pl-->BYOP w Warszawie, 11.02<!--:--><!--:en-->BYOP @ Warsaw, Feb 12th<!--:-->

Next article —

Grails session timeout without XML

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Private fields and methods are not private in groovy

I used to code in Java before I met groovy. Like most of you, groovy attracted me with many enhancements. This was to my surprise to discover that method visibility in groovy is handled different than Java!

Consider this example:

class Person {
private String name
public  String surname

private Person() {}

private String signature() { "${name?.substring(0, 1)}. $surname" }

public String toString() { "I am $name $surname" }
}

How is this class interpreted with Java?

  1. Person has private constructor that cannot be accessed
  2. Field "name" is private and cannot be accessed
  3. Method signature() is private and cannot be accessed

Let's see how groovy interpretes Person:

public static void main(String[] args) {
def person = new Person()   // constructor is private - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.@name = 'Mike'       // access name field directly - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.name = 'John'        // there is a setter generated by groovy
println(person.toString())

    person.@surname = 'Foo'     // access surname field directly
println(person.toString())

    person.surname = 'Bar'      // access auto-generated setter
println(person.toString())

println(person.signature()) // call private method - compilation error in Java
}

I was really astonished by its output:

I am null null
I am Mike null
I am John null
I am John Foo
I am John Bar
J. Bar

As you can see, groovy does not follow visibility directives at all! It treats them as non-existing. Code compiles and executes fine. It's contrary to Java. In Java this code has several errors, pointed out in comments.

I've searched a bit on this topic and it seems that this behaviour is known since version 1.1 and there is a bug report on that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY-1875. It is not resolved even with groovy 2 release. As Tim Yates mentioned in this Stackoverflow question: "It's not clear if it is a bug or by design". Groovy treats visibility keywords as a hint for a programmer.

I need to keep that lesson in mind next time I want to make some field or method private!