You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 12, 2022. It is now read-only.
Related to #5, it's desirable that Simulation can test errors which occur due to task execution ordering. Currently, this can be done by adding a random Delay to each spawned task. This may not be sufficient for large number of tasks though, as the default Timer implementation has a 1ms granularity. Having a granularity this high may cause undesirable timeouts for other parts of the system.
I think the easiest way to fix this is to switch timer implementations to something based on nanoseconds or microseconds. Further, each spawned task would have a Delay of at least 1 nanosecond, This would also fix #5, as users could use the logical clock via Now::now() to see the precise state a simulation is in.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Related to #5, it's desirable that Simulation can test errors which occur due to task execution ordering. Currently, this can be done by adding a random
Delay
to each spawned task. This may not be sufficient for large number of tasks though, as the defaultTimer
implementation has a 1ms granularity. Having a granularity this high may cause undesirable timeouts for other parts of the system.I think the easiest way to fix this is to switch timer implementations to something based on nanoseconds or microseconds. Further, each spawned task would have a
Delay
of at least 1 nanosecond, This would also fix #5, as users could use the logical clock viaNow::now()
to see the precise state a simulation is in.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: