allthingssecurity opened a new pull request, #26790:
URL: https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/26790

   # Description
   
   [CAMEL-24945](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-24945)
   
   With optimistic locking, `onCompletion` removed the group from the 
repository and then called `timeoutMap.remove(key)` without a lock. If another 
exchange started a new group for the same key in between (registering its 
timeout before its add), the completing thread removed the new group's timeout. 
The new group then never completed by timeout.
   
   This change, with optimistic locking only:
   - `onCompletion` no longer removes the timeout entry. A leftover entry is 
harmless: the eviction reads the group and removes it with a compare-and-set, 
and every new group refreshes the entry before it is added.
   - `onEviction` no longer skips an entry because its exchange id is in 
progress. With leftover entries that id can belong to a completed group while a 
newer group for the key is waiting. The compare-and-set already prevents 
completing a group twice.
   
   Both halves are needed. With only the first, a group can still be stranded 
(m1/m2 starting groups concurrently, then m2's group completing). The TLA+ 
model found that, and so does a unit test with a repository that keeps exchange 
ids, like JDBC. Pessimistic locking is unchanged.
   
   Tests: new `AggregateOptimisticLockingTimeoutTest`, where timeouts only 
start when the test allows it. Without the fix, 2 fail; with only the first 
half, 1 fails. With the full fix, both pass. The aggregator suites pass.
   
   Side effects, optimistic locking only: a completed group's timeout entry 
stays until it expires, and its eviction costs one repository `get`. With 
several instances sharing a repository, an old entry can complete another 
instance's newer group for the same key up to one timeout early, the same way 
cross-instance timeouts already behave.
   
   Found with a TLA+ model of the Aggregate EIP (a group without a timeout), 
then reproduced against the real classes.
   
   # Target
   
   - [x] I checked that the commit is targeting the correct branch (Camel 4 
uses the `main` branch)
   
   # Tracking
   - [x] If this is a large change, bug fix, or code improvement, I checked 
there is a [JIRA issue](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL) filed for 
the change (usually before you start working on it).
   
   # Apache Camel coding standards and style
   
   - [x] I checked that each commit in the pull request has a meaningful 
subject line and body.
   - [ ] I have run `mvn clean install -DskipTests` locally from root folder 
and I have committed all auto-generated changes.
     (I built and tested the affected modules, including the formatter and 
import-sort plugins. I did not run the full root build.)
   
   # AI-assisted contributions
   
   - [x] If this PR includes AI-generated code, commits have proper 
co-authorship attribution (e.g., `Co-authored-by` trailers) and the PR 
description identifies the AI tool used.
     This PR was prepared with Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5). The commit 
carries a `Co-Authored-By` trailer.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to