Moves expectMessage to before creating BeamFnLoggingClient

[acrites]

I saw some precommits fail since an exception can be thrown inside createAndStart method. expectMessage needs to be called to setup expectations before the exception is actually thrown.

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @acrites, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue in the BeamFnLoggingClientTest where precommit checks were failing due to an incorrectly timed exception expectation. By moving the expectMessage call to an earlier point, the test now correctly anticipates and handles exceptions that may arise during the initialization of the BeamFnLoggingClient, preventing test failures and improving test reliability.

Highlights

• Test Expectation Ordering: The thrown.expectMessage call in BeamFnLoggingClientTest was reordered to occur before the BeamFnLoggingClient.createAndStart method call. This ensures that the exception expectation is set up correctly before an exception can be thrown during client creation, addressing precommit failures.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• sdks/java/harness/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/fn/harness/logging/BeamFnLoggingClientTest.java
  • Moved thrown.expectMessage call to ensure proper exception handling during client creation.

Activity

• The pull request was created by acrites.
• No human activity (comments, reviews) has occurred since the pull request's creation.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[github-actions]

Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers

[acrites]

assign set of reviewers

[github-actions]

Assigning reviewers:

R: @kennknowles for label java.

Note: If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

[kennknowles]

Is the test busted? From the title it sounds like it is expecting the failure to only occur in the thing right after the expectMessage is set up, so a failure before then would be a legit test failure.

[acrites]

It seems like it's just flakey. From my reading of the code, when we create the client, it's possible the async thread consuming logs could become complete while in the constructor:

beam/sdks/java/harness/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/fn/harness/logging/BeamFnLoggingClient.java

Line 173 in eac11fe

CompletableFuture.anyOf(this.bufferedLogConsumer, started).get();

.

[kennknowles]

OK... I don't trust that code you linked to much, and I don't think we should be having red signal here because of it... but I feel like some TLC on the underlying functionality might be good. Like, in a unit test environment we should know exactly when the failure is going to be raised.

[kennknowles]

Kicking the tests - LMK if they flake again or when they go green if I don't get to this promptly.