GeezerVison is showing github.com — Fix resulting buffer from BufferProxy's out method being ignored. by LambdAurora · Pull Request #255 · lmdbjava/lmdbjava
Conversation
LambdAurora
commented
Jul 9, 2025
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This pull request aims to fix some cases in LMDBJava where the BufferProxy's out method resulting buffer is ignored, especially in Dbi.
I've discovered this issue while attempting to write a new implementation of BufferProxy to use Java 22's Function Foreign Memory API in preparation of Java 25's depreciation of various methods in Unsafe invalidating most fast BufferProxy implementations. The implementation failed to pass some tests since in the out method I returned a new ByteBuffer (taking advantage of MemorySegment.ofAddress().asByteBuffer()).
After further investigation, I've found that ByteArrayProxy also relies on returning a different "buffer" from the one that's given as an argument, for which I've added new tests that reproduce the behavior of DbiTest.customComparator and DbiTest.dbiWithComparatorThreadSafety using byte arrays instead. ByteArrayProxy led me to think that returning a different buffer in out is an allowed and intended behavior.
This fix is important for users of ByteArrayProxy and allows for a stop-gap external implementation of BufferProxy using the FFM API to allow users to upgrade to Java 25 when the time comes until a proper resolution to #42 comes around.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
TODO: address failing dbiWithComparatorThreadSafetyByteArray test.
This proves to be more reliable than Agreno's UnsafeBuffers.
|
Regarding the upgrade to Java 25, see #259
I will however try and verify and merge this PR as soon as possible.
|
LambdAurora reacted with hooray emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
codecov
Bot
commented
Oct 26, 2025
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.33%. Comparing base (0b741e8) to head (58a489f).
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #255 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 89.33% +0.72%
- Complexity 409 413 +4
============================================
Files 32 32
Lines 1483 1481 -2
Branches 124 124
============================================
+ Hits 1314 1323 +9
+ Misses 100 88 -12
- Partials 69 70 +1
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
- ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Assignees
No one assigned
Milestone
No milestone
Development
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.