Fix a bug in LongPriorityQueue internal remove (#10832)
Motivation: We rely on this functionality in PoolChunk, and a bug was caught by a non-deterministic test failure Modification: Went back to the Algorithms book, and reimplemented remove() the way it was meant to. Result: No test failures after 200.000 runs, so we have some confidence the code is correct now.
This commit is contained in:
parent
28ef4d18f9
commit
d660706588
@ -36,24 +36,27 @@ final class LongPriorityQueue {
|
||||
array = Arrays.copyOf(array, 1 + (array.length - 1) * 2);
|
||||
}
|
||||
array[size] = handle;
|
||||
lift();
|
||||
lift(size);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
public void remove(long value) {
|
||||
for (int i = 1; i <= size; i++) {
|
||||
if (array[i] == value) {
|
||||
if (i == size) {
|
||||
array[i] = 0;
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
array[i] = array[size];
|
||||
sink(i);
|
||||
}
|
||||
size--;
|
||||
array[i] = array[size--];
|
||||
lift(i);
|
||||
sink(i);
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
public long peek() {
|
||||
if (size == 0) {
|
||||
return NO_VALUE;
|
||||
}
|
||||
return array[1];
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
public long poll() {
|
||||
if (size == 0) {
|
||||
return NO_VALUE;
|
||||
@ -70,8 +73,7 @@ final class LongPriorityQueue {
|
||||
return size == 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
private void lift() {
|
||||
int index = size;
|
||||
private void lift(int index) {
|
||||
int parentIndex;
|
||||
while (index > 1 && subord(parentIndex = index >> 1, index)) {
|
||||
swap(index, parentIndex);
|
||||
|
@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ class LongPriorityQueueTest {
|
||||
@Test
|
||||
public void internalRemoveMustPreserveOrder() {
|
||||
ThreadLocalRandom tlr = ThreadLocalRandom.current();
|
||||
int initialValues = tlr.nextInt(5, 30);
|
||||
int initialValues = tlr.nextInt(1, 30);
|
||||
ArrayList<Long> values = new ArrayList<Long>();
|
||||
LongPriorityQueue pq = new LongPriorityQueue();
|
||||
for (int i = 0; i < initialValues; i++) {
|
||||
@ -127,13 +127,21 @@ class LongPriorityQueueTest {
|
||||
pq.offer(10);
|
||||
pq.offer(6);
|
||||
pq.remove(10);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(5);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(5);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(5);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(5);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(5);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(6);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(6);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(6);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(6);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(6);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(10);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(10);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(10);
|
||||
assertTrue(pq.isEmpty());
|
||||
assertThat(pq.poll()).isEqualTo(LongPriorityQueue.NO_VALUE);
|
||||
assertThat(pq.peek()).isEqualTo(LongPriorityQueue.NO_VALUE);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user