Skip to content

Flag and maybe delete messages after messages have been copied #9546

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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 5 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024
Merged

Flag and maybe delete messages after messages have been copied #9546

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
81ee4c2
Flag and maybe delete messages after messages have been copied
filiphr Oct 11, 2024
45668a4
Apply review feedback
filiphr Oct 11, 2024
b5d2710
Apply review feedback
filiphr Oct 11, 2024
62638e8
Adjust test
filiphr Oct 11, 2024
7c7c482
Use spy instead of own property
filiphr Oct 11, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
22 changes: 16 additions & 6 deletions ...gration-mail/src/main/java/org/springframework/integration/mail/AbstractMailReceiver.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@
* @author Dominik Simmen
* @author Yuxin Wang
* @author Ngoc Nhan
* @author Filip Hrisafov
*/
public abstract class AbstractMailReceiver extends IntegrationObjectSupport implements MailReceiver, DisposableBean {

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -503,18 +504,27 @@ private Object byteArrayToContent(Map<String, Object> headers, ByteArrayOutputSt
}

private void postProcessFilteredMessages(Message[] filteredMessages) throws MessagingException {
setMessageFlags(filteredMessages);

if (shouldDeleteMessages()) {
deleteMessages(filteredMessages);
}
// Copy messages to cause an eager fetch
Message[] messages = filteredMessages;
if (this.headerMapper == null && (this.autoCloseFolder || this.simpleContent)) {
messages = new Message[filteredMessages.length];
for (int i = 0; i < filteredMessages.length; i++) {
MimeMessage mimeMessage = new IntegrationMimeMessage((MimeMessage) filteredMessages[i]);
Message originalMessage = filteredMessages[i];
messages[i] = originalMessage;
MimeMessage mimeMessage = new IntegrationMimeMessage((MimeMessage) originalMessage);
filteredMessages[i] = mimeMessage;
}
}

setMessageFlagsAndMaybeDeleteMessages(messages);
}

private void setMessageFlagsAndMaybeDeleteMessages(Message[] messages) throws MessagingException {
setMessageFlags(messages);

if (shouldDeleteMessages()) {
deleteMessages(messages);
}
}

private void setMessageFlags(Message[] filteredMessages) throws MessagingException {
Expand Down
71 changes: 70 additions & 1 deletion ...ration-mail/src/test/java/org/springframework/integration/mail/ImapMailReceiverTests.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
package org.springframework.integration.mail;

import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.OutputStream;
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@
import org.springframework.util.MimeTypeUtils;

import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThatThrownBy;
import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.any;
import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.anyString;
import static org.mockito.BDDMockito.given;
Expand All @@ -107,6 +109,7 @@
* @author Artem Bilan
* @author Alexander Pinske
* @author Dominik Simmen
* @author Filip Hrisafov
*/
@SpringJUnitConfig
@ContextConfiguration(
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -299,6 +302,11 @@ public void receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDelete() throws Exception {

private AbstractMailReceiver receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDeleteGuts(AbstractMailReceiver receiver, Message msg1,
Message msg2) throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException, MessagingException {
return receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDeleteGuts(receiver, msg1, msg2, true);
}

private AbstractMailReceiver receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDeleteGuts(AbstractMailReceiver receiver, Message msg1,
Message msg2, boolean receive) throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException, MessagingException {

((ImapMailReceiver) receiver).setShouldMarkMessagesAsRead(true);
receiver = spy(receiver);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -326,7 +334,9 @@ private AbstractMailReceiver receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDeleteGuts(AbstractMailRece
willAnswer(invocation -> messages).given(folder).search(any(SearchTerm.class));

willAnswer(invocation -> null).given(receiver).fetchMessages(messages);
receiver.receive();
if (receive) {
receiver.receive();
}
return receiver;
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -980,6 +990,30 @@ private void setUpScheduler(ImapMailReceiver mailReceiver, ThreadPoolTaskSchedul
mailReceiver.setBeanFactory(bf);
}

@Test
public void receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDeleteWithThrowingWhenCopying() throws Exception {
AbstractMailReceiver receiver = new ImapMailReceiver();
MimeMessage msg1 = GreenMailUtil.newMimeMessage("test1");
MimeMessage greenMailMsg2 = GreenMailUtil.newMimeMessage("test2");
TestThrowingMimeMessage msg2 = new TestThrowingMimeMessage(greenMailMsg2, 1);
receiver = receiveAndMarkAsReadDontDeleteGuts(receiver, msg1, msg2, false);
assertThatThrownBy(receiver::receive)
.isInstanceOf(MessagingException.class)
.hasMessage("IOException while copying message")
.cause()
.isInstanceOf(IOException.class)
.hasMessage("Simulated exception");
assertThat(msg1.getFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isFalse();
assertThat(msg2.getFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isFalse();
assertThat(msg2.getMyTestFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isFalse();

receiver.receive();
assertThat(msg1.getFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();
assertThat(msg2.getFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();
assertThat(msg2.getMyTestFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();
verify(receiver, times(0)).deleteMessages(Mockito.any());
}

private static class ImapSearchLoggingHandler extends Handler {

private final List<String> searches = new ArrayList<>();
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1015,4 +1049,39 @@ public void close() throws SecurityException {

}

private static class TestThrowingMimeMessage extends MimeMessage {

protected final AtomicInteger exceptionsBeforeWrite;

protected final Flags myTestFlags = new Flags();

private TestThrowingMimeMessage(MimeMessage source, int exceptionsBeforeWrite) throws MessagingException {
super(source);
this.exceptionsBeforeWrite = new AtomicInteger(exceptionsBeforeWrite);
}

@Override
public void writeTo(OutputStream os) throws IOException, MessagingException {
if (this.exceptionsBeforeWrite.decrementAndGet() >= 0) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like just AtomicBoolean will be enough without any extra ctor arg.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right. I've adjusted it

throw new IOException("Simulated exception");
}
super.writeTo(os);
}

@Override
public synchronized void setFlags(Flags flag, boolean set) throws MessagingException {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we need to override this if there is that Message.getFlags()?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is to show that we are calling the setFlags on the original message and not the copied one. The Flags can be shared. The MimeMessage has

flags = source.getFlags();
if (flags == null)    // make sure flags is always set
    flags = new Flags();

So if the source has Flags and we call the setFlags on the filteredMessages then the test will still pass. The goal of the change is to show that the setFlags is called on the original message.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't look like you validate somehow in the test if message was original or IntegrationMimeMessage.
Therefore this extra precaution is redundant.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is

assertThat(msg2.getMyTestFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();

In the test.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But looks like it is exactly the same as previous one:

assertThat(msg2.getFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();

That's why I believe that is really enough.
Because you are not going to deal with mock messages in the real application.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to validate that the setFlags is called on the original message and not on the IntegrationMimeMessage. Currently, GreenMailUtil#newMimeMessage does not set the flags. However, if you want I can set it up in such case that if the setMessageFlagsAndMaybeDeleteMessages is called on the IntegrationMimeMessage the test would fail.

assertThat(msg2.getFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();

The test above passes as the Flags are shared. But

assertThat(msg2.getMyTestFlags().contains(Flag.SEEN)).isTrue();

would fail as it has it's own flags. If you think it is too much, I can remove it

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK. You probably can spy() on the GreenMailUtil#newMimeMessage result to verfiy that exactly its setFlags() is called.
It is still look redundant to have our own property when it is there in the super class.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good point with the spy(). I'll add that

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've replaced that with a spy. Hope it is good now.

super.setFlags(flag, set);
if (set) {
myTestFlags.add(flag);
}
else {
myTestFlags.remove(flag);
}
}

private Flags getMyTestFlags() {
return myTestFlags;
}
}

}