Hacktoberfest 2026：維護者為十月標記出來的 issue，仍然開放、適合新手。 瀏覽 Hacktoberfest issue

Fragile window abandonment during concatMap operations; silent data loss

未關閉
  • 哪裡不對？
#7,956 2 則留言 1 個 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 檢視

維護者通常 1 天內回覆

還沒有人認領這個 Issue。

評估

難度
4/5
預估耗時
3-5 天
新手友好度
38/100
Issue 類型
缺陷
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活躍度
停滯
技術堆疊
java
領域
backend-api-design

研究方向

首先使用 Flowable.window() 搭配 concatMapSingle() 和 concatMapMaybe() 執行兩個重現，並比較 blockingSubscribe() 的不同變體。追蹤視窗放棄與下游訂閱之間的互動；當視窗不會被靜默丟棄，或放棄會產生文件中說明的錯誤時，即表示完成。

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。

描述

3.x 4.x Investigating

Combining the Flowable.window() family of operators with any of the Flowable.concatMap*() operators appears to cause window abandonment bugs which are sensitive to how the outer Flowable is processed downstream. This despite the given concatMap lambdas returning an Rx Single/Maybe ready to be subscribed as soon as they are returned and which will signal the upstream window for subscription synchronously.

In the demonstrations below, I subscribe to identical .window().concatMap() constructions with very slightly different downstreams (.blockingSuscribe(System.out::println) vs. .doOnNext(System.out::println).blockingSubscribe()) and they emit drastically different results due to silent data-loss.

Example: Windowing a stream into lists, similar to the buffer() operator.

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        final var content = Flowable
                .rangeLong(0, 100)
                .window(10)
                .concatMapSingle(Flowable::toList);

        System.out.println("Example 1: Expected behavior for concetMapSingle(Flowable::toList)");
        content
                .doOnNext(System.out::println)
                .blockingSubscribe();

        System.out.println("Example 2: Window abandonment & data-loss");
        content
                .blockingSubscribe(System.out::println);
    }

Output:

Example 1: Expected behavior for concetMapSingle(Flowable::toList)
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
[10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]
[20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]
[30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]
[40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]
[50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59]
[60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69]
[70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]
[80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89]
[90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]

Example 2: Window abandonment & data-loss
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
[10]
[20]
[30]
[40]
[50]
[60]
[70]
[80]
[90]

Example: Windowing a stream into a simple reduction operation.

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        final var windowSums = Flowable
                .rangeLong(0, 100)
                .window(10)
                .concatMapMaybe(window -> window.reduce(Long::sum));

        System.out.println("Example 3: Expected behavior for concetMapMaybe(window -> window.reduce(Long::sum))");
        windowSums
                .doOnNext(System.out::println)
                .blockingSubscribe();

        System.out.println("Example 4: Silent data loss");
        windowSums
                .blockingSubscribe(System.out::println);
    }

Output:

Example 3: Expected behavior for concetMapMaybe(window -> window.reduce(Long::sum))
45
145
245
345
445
545
645
745
845
945

Example 4: Silent data loss
45
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

The flatMap*() family of operators seem less prone to this behavior but don't guarantee to retain the upstream ordering.

Ideally, I'd expect window() to be compatible with concatMap(). But if such is impossible, I'd expect the window-abandonment detection described in https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJava/wiki/What%27s-different-in-3.0#window-abandonment-in-window to at least signal an error.

主要語言
Java
星號
48.2k
分支
7.6k
平均合併
3 小時 9 分鐘
30 天內合併 PR
25

環境準備

從這裡開始

  1. 先讀完整個 Issue，再讀專案的貢獻指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言說明你要接手 —— 這能避免兩個人做同樣的事。
  3. Fork 儲存庫，在一個分支上完成修改。
  4. 送出 Pull Request，並在描述裡引用這個 Issue 編號。

ReactiveX/RxJava 的其他 Issue

查看 ReactiveX/RxJava 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Java Issue

把新 issue 寄到你的電子郵件信箱

精選適合新手參與的 GitHub issue 摘要。