Conversation
Co-authored-by: acsoto <59144459+acsoto@users.noreply.github.com>
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f8d9ad6cb6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| new BukkitRunnable() { | ||
| @Override | ||
| public void run() { | ||
| Gem.getPlugin().getGemExecutor().setGems(playerName, gems); | ||
| sender.sendMessage(Message.INFO + playerName + " 的宝石设置为: " + gems); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid calling Bukkit API from async thread
This async task now calls sender.sendMessage(...) from the scheduler’s async thread. In Bukkit/Spigot, most API calls (including messaging a CommandSender/Player) are not thread-safe and are expected to run on the main server thread. If sender is a player, this can surface as warnings or intermittent issues under load. The async work should be limited to the database call, then schedule a sync task to send the message back on the main thread.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR offloads the blocking GemExecutor.setGems() database operation to an async task to prevent main thread blocking during gem management operations. The change wraps the database call in BukkitRunnable.runTaskAsynchronously() and refactors the method signature to accept parameters instead of using instance fields for thread safety.
Changes:
- Modified
CommandGem.set()to execute database operations asynchronously using BukkitRunnable - Refactored
set()method to acceptCommandSenderandargsas parameters for thread safety - Added test infrastructure with JUnit, Mockito, and ByteBuddy dependencies and a benchmark test to verify async behavior
- Updated PlaceholderAPI version from 2.11.1 to 2.11.5
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| modules/Gem/src/main/java/com/mcatk/gem/command/CommandGem.java | Modified set() method to wrap database operation in async task and accept parameters instead of using instance fields |
| modules/Gem/src/test/java/com/mcatk/gem/command/CommandGemBenchmarkTest.java | Added test to verify async execution and performance improvement with mocked Bukkit environment |
| modules/Gem/pom.xml | Added test dependencies (JUnit, Mockito, ByteBuddy) and updated PlaceholderAPI version |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| switch (args[0].toLowerCase()) { | ||
| case "set": | ||
| set(); | ||
| set(sender, args); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The instance fields this.sender and this.args are still being set in onCommand() (lines 26-27), even though the set() method has been refactored to use parameters instead. This creates an incomplete fix: while set() is now thread-safe, the other methods (check(), add(), take(), total(), printHelp(), sendParameterError()) still rely on these instance fields. If multiple commands are executed concurrently or if async tasks complete after new commands arrive, these methods could read incorrect values. Consider either: (1) removing these instance fields entirely and passing parameters to all methods, or (2) making all database-accessing methods async with parameter passing like set() was changed.
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.mockito</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>mockito-inline</artifactId> | ||
| <version>5.2.0</version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a version mismatch between mockito-core (5.11.0) and mockito-inline (5.2.0). These should typically use the same version to avoid potential compatibility issues. Consider updating mockito-inline to 5.11.0 to match mockito-core, or verify that this specific version combination is intentional and compatible.
| <version>5.2.0</version> | |
| <version>5.11.0</version> |
| import static org.mockito.Mockito.*; | ||
|
|
||
| @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) | ||
| public class CommandGemBenchmarkTest { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The class is named "CommandGemBenchmarkTest" but it's actually a functional test with a timing assertion rather than a true benchmark. Benchmarks typically involve multiple iterations, warmup phases, and statistical analysis. Consider renaming to "CommandGemAsyncTest" or similar to better reflect its purpose, or use a proper benchmarking framework like JMH if benchmarking is the actual goal.
| public class CommandGemBenchmarkTest { | |
| public class CommandGemAsyncTest { |
💡 What:
GemExecutor.setGemscall inCommandGem.setwithBukkitRunnable.runTaskAsynchronously.CommandGem.set()to acceptCommandSenderandargsas parameters instead of relying on instance fields, ensuring thread safety for the async task.CommandGemBenchmarkTestto verify the performance improvement and correct async execution.pom.xmlto include JUnit, Mockito, and ByteBuddy for testing, and fixed the PlaceholderAPI repository/version to ensure build success.🎯 Why:
this.senderin an async task (or even generally in a singleton CommandExecutor) is unsafe if concurrent commands were possible or if the state changed before async execution.📊 Measured Improvement:
PR created automatically by Jules for task 14764446331830774432 started by @acsoto