-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
FIRApp: thread safety fixes #2639
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ Firebase Core includes FIRApp and FIROptions which provide central configuration | |
| s.framework = 'Foundation' | ||
| s.dependency 'GoogleUtilities/Environment', '~> 5.2' | ||
| s.dependency 'GoogleUtilities/Logger', '~> 5.2' | ||
| s.dependency 'GoogleUtilities/Network', '~> 5.2' | ||
|
||
| s.pod_target_xcconfig = { | ||
| 'GCC_C_LANGUAGE_STANDARD' => 'c99', | ||
| 'GCC_PREPROCESSOR_DEFINITIONS' => | ||
|
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is GULMutableDictionary needed? Would it be sufficient to do the accesses with synchronized(self) like some of the
sAllAppsaccesses already are?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just adding
synchronized(self)would be sufficient.My intention here was to fix the current issue and help to prevent it happening in the future. With just
synchronized(self)in case if new logic is added, a developer would have to remember to addsynchronized(self). WithGULMutableDictionarynew logic aroundsAllAppsandsLibraryVersionswill be most likely thread safe without additional efforts.Please, let me know if I am missing something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems like this might be a partial complete fix. I'm a bit worried about destabilizing low-level code that we don't have great tests for. I wonder if today we should do the minimal fix of adding the missing
sychronized(self)'s and for the next release do the complete fix of everything in this PR plus making a new GoogleUtilities subspec plus removing the redundant synchronized selfs?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds reasonable.
The only thing I am worried about with
sychronized(self)- I don't know the code well enough to be sure that additionalsychronized(self)will not introduce a deadlock. Let me take a look at the code one more time.