Skip to content

awaitPendingWrites initial revision #689

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.

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
7 commits merged into from
Aug 8, 2019
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
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
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.AccessHelper.getAsyncQueue;
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil.newTestSettings;
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil.provider;
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil.testChangeUserTo;
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil.testCollection;
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil.testCollectionWithDocs;
import static com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil.testDocument;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
import com.google.firebase.Timestamp;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.FirebaseFirestoreException.Code;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.Query.Direction;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.auth.User;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.EventAccumulator;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.IntegrationTestUtil;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.util.AsyncQueue.TimerId;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1096,4 +1098,49 @@ public void testShutdownCalledMultipleTimes() {

expectError(() -> waitFor(reference.get()), expectedMessage);
}

@Test
public void testWaitForPendingWritesResolves() {
DocumentReference documentReference = testCollection("abc").document("123");
FirebaseFirestore firestore = documentReference.getFirestore();
Map<String, Object> data = map("foo", "bar");

waitFor(firestore.disableNetwork());
Task<Void> awaitsPendingWrites1 = firestore.waitForPendingWrites();
Task<Void> pendingWrite = documentReference.set(data);
Task<Void> awaitsPendingWrites2 = firestore.waitForPendingWrites();

// `awaitsPendingWrites1` is complete immediately because there is no pending writes at
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/is complete/completes/
s/there is/there are/

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

// the time it is created.
waitFor(awaitsPendingWrites1);
assertTrue(awaitsPendingWrites1.isComplete() && awaitsPendingWrites1.isSuccessful());
assertTrue(!pendingWrite.isComplete());
assertTrue(!awaitsPendingWrites2.isComplete());

waitFor(firestore.enableNetwork());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Technically, you don't need to wait for enableNetwork() or the pending write.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

waitFor(pendingWrite);
waitFor(awaitsPendingWrites2);
assertTrue(awaitsPendingWrites2.isComplete() && awaitsPendingWrites2.isSuccessful());
}

@Test
public void testWaitForPendingWritesFailsWhenUserChanges() {
DocumentReference documentReference = testCollection("abc").document("123");
FirebaseFirestore firestore = documentReference.getFirestore();
Map<String, Object> data = map("foo", "bar");

// Prevent pending writes receiving acknowledgement.
waitFor(firestore.disableNetwork());
Task<Void> pendingWrite = documentReference.set(data);
Task<Void> awaitsPendingWrites = firestore.waitForPendingWrites();
assertTrue(!pendingWrite.isComplete());
assertTrue(!awaitsPendingWrites.isComplete());

testChangeUserTo(new User("new user"));

assertTrue(!pendingWrite.isComplete());
assertEquals(
"'waitForPendingWrites' task is cancelled due to User change.",
waitForException(awaitsPendingWrites).getMessage());
}
}
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -36,11 +36,13 @@
import com.google.firebase.firestore.MetadataChanges;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.QuerySnapshot;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.auth.EmptyCredentialsProvider;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.auth.User;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.core.DatabaseInfo;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.local.Persistence;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.model.DatabaseId;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.testutil.provider.FirestoreProvider;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.util.AsyncQueue;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.util.Listener;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.util.Logger;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.util.Logger.Level;
import java.util.ArrayList;
Expand All @@ -53,6 +55,34 @@
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException;

class MockCredentialsProvider extends EmptyCredentialsProvider {

private static MockCredentialsProvider instance;

public static MockCredentialsProvider instance() {
if (MockCredentialsProvider.instance == null) {
MockCredentialsProvider.instance = new MockCredentialsProvider();
}
return MockCredentialsProvider.instance;
}

private MockCredentialsProvider() {
super();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: This super() call is not needed, is it?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's not.

}

@Override
public void setChangeListener(Listener<User> changeListener) {
super.setChangeListener(changeListener);
this.listener = changeListener;
}

public void changeUserTo(User user) {
listener.onValue(user);
}

private Listener<User> listener;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: Move to top of class.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

}

/** A set of helper methods for tests */
public class IntegrationTestUtil {

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -239,7 +269,7 @@ public static FirebaseFirestore testFirestore(
context,
databaseId,
persistenceKey,
new EmptyCredentialsProvider(),
MockCredentialsProvider.instance(),
asyncQueue,
/*firebaseApp=*/ null,
/*instanceRegistry=*/ (dbId) -> {});
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -409,4 +439,8 @@ public static Map<String, Object> toDataMap(QuerySnapshot qrySnap) {
public static boolean isRunningAgainstEmulator() {
return CONNECT_TO_EMULATOR;
}

public static void testChangeUserTo(User user) {
MockCredentialsProvider.instance().changeUserTo(user);
}
}
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -362,6 +362,18 @@ Task<Void> shutdown() {
return shutdownInternal();
}

/**
* Wait for server acknowledgement for all pending writes existing at the time of calling this
* method.
*
* <p>Both acceptance and rejection count as server acknowledgement.
*
* @return A {@link Task} which resolves when all pending writes are acknowledged by the server.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We likely want to update the comment a bit:

  • We should use concepts that are more widely known ("server acknowledgement for all pending writes" -> "when all writes have been sent to the backend").
  • We should mention how this behaves during a user change.
  • We should mention that this works even after client restart.

If you want to, we can tweak this comment in the chatroom.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah. I made some change, but not enough. Especially i don't understand your comment about client restart, and how this still works with a restart. Let's chat tmr.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One of the reasons that this is a heavily requested feature is that it offers users the ability to monitor the state of writes that were issued during an earlier app session.If a user issues a write and then closes the app before the write is committed, it is not very straightforward to figure out whether the write made it to the backend once the app is opened again. drain/awaitPendingWrites solves this problem nicely.

Just for reference: This can be done today by either issuing a dummy write and waiting for its completion (one would have to know that we commit writes sequentially) or by issuing gets for all documents that were written and checking the hasPendingWrites flags.

*/
Task<Void> waitForPendingWrites() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still think we should move this comment to a doc (it could be the API proposal doc) and do some collaborative editing:

  • pending writes that existed at the time of calling could be clearer.
  • written to the server is an unusual way of phrasing the right thing.
  • I think we should move the comment on the user change to a separate paragraph and move it out of the @return section
  • Tasks on Android don't resolve, they complete.

@mikelehen usually has a ton of good feedback on these comments, and his feedback tends to be much more valuable than what I can provide.

Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The API proposal doc would be a good place to collaborate on this.

Note that the "written to the server" language is used in the iOS documentation already which is why I suggested it: https://github.com/firebase/firebase-ios-sdk/blob/master/Firestore/Source/Public/FIRDocumentReference.h#L117. I'm definitely open to finding a better way to succinctly describe this.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Using Sebastian's version now, looks great.

return client.waitForPendingWrites();
}

@VisibleForTesting
AsyncQueue getAsyncQueue() {
return asyncQueue;
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -224,6 +224,24 @@ public <TResult> Task<TResult> transaction(
() -> syncEngine.transaction(asyncQueue, updateFunction, retries));
}

/**
* Returns a task resolves when all the pending writes at the time when this method is called
* received server acknowledgement. An acknowledgement can be either acceptance or rejections.
*/
public Task<Void> waitForPendingWrites() {
this.verifyNotShutdown();
if (!remoteStore.canUseNetwork()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should run on the async queue:

  • It accesses internal state.
  • enableNetwork() and disableNetwork() run on the async queue, so for this warning to show up these operations would need to resolve before the user calls awaitPendingWrites.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the catch.

Logger.warn(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am a little torn on whether this is a "warning" - it is certainly not a problem in the SDK itself, and technically not even for users of the SDK. It prevents unexpected behavior - so I would advocate to lower the log level here.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

LOG_TAG,
"Network is disabled, the Task created to wait for all writes getting"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can simplify this:

"The network is disabled. The task returned by awaitPendingWrites() will not complete until the network is enabled."

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

+ " acknowledged by server will not complete until network is enabled.");
}

final TaskCompletionSource<Void> source = new TaskCompletionSource<>();
asyncQueue.enqueueAndForget(() -> syncEngine.registerPendingWritesTask(source));
return source.getTask();
}

private void initialize(Context context, User user, boolean usePersistence, long cacheSizeBytes) {
// Note: The initialization work must all be synchronous (we can't dispatch more work) since
// external write/listen operations could get queued to run before that subsequent work
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
import com.google.android.gms.tasks.TaskCompletionSource;
import com.google.android.gms.tasks.Tasks;
import com.google.common.base.Function;
import com.google.common.collect.Lists;
import com.google.firebase.database.collection.ImmutableSortedMap;
import com.google.firebase.database.collection.ImmutableSortedSet;
import com.google.firebase.firestore.FirebaseFirestoreException;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -133,6 +134,9 @@ interface SyncEngineCallback {
/** Stores user completion blocks, indexed by user and batch ID. */
private final Map<User, Map<Integer, TaskCompletionSource<Void>>> mutationUserCallbacks;

/** Stores user callbacks waiting for all pending writes to be acknowledged. */
private final Map<Integer, List<TaskCompletionSource<Void>>> pendingWritesCallbacks;

/** Used for creating the target IDs for the listens used to resolve limbo documents. */
private final TargetIdGenerator targetIdGenerator;

Expand All @@ -154,6 +158,8 @@ public SyncEngine(LocalStore localStore, RemoteStore remoteStore, User initialUs
mutationUserCallbacks = new HashMap<>();
targetIdGenerator = TargetIdGenerator.forSyncEngine();
currentUser = initialUser;

pendingWritesCallbacks = new HashMap<>();
}

public void setCallback(SyncEngineCallback callback) {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -407,6 +413,8 @@ public void handleSuccessfulWrite(MutationBatchResult mutationBatchResult) {
// they consistently happen before listen events.
notifyUser(mutationBatchResult.getBatch().getBatchId(), /*status=*/ null);

resolveTasksAwaitingForPendingWritesIfAny(mutationBatchResult.getBatch().getBatchId());

ImmutableSortedMap<DocumentKey, MaybeDocument> changes =
localStore.acknowledgeBatch(mutationBatchResult);

Expand All @@ -427,9 +435,56 @@ public void handleRejectedWrite(int batchId, Status status) {
// they consistently happen before listen events.
notifyUser(batchId, status);

resolveTasksAwaitingForPendingWritesIfAny(batchId);

emitNewSnapsAndNotifyLocalStore(changes, /*remoteEvent=*/ null);
}

/**
* Takes a snapshot of current local mutation queue, and register a user task which will resolve
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: remove "local"

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

* when all those mutations are either accepted or rejected by the server.
*/
public void registerPendingWritesTask(TaskCompletionSource<Void> userTask) {
int largestPendingBatchId = localStore.getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId();

if (largestPendingBatchId == 0) {
// Complete the task right away if there is no pending writes at the moment.
userTask.setResult(null);
return;
}

if (pendingWritesCallbacks.containsKey(largestPendingBatchId)) {
pendingWritesCallbacks.get(largestPendingBatchId).add(userTask);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you don't need a multi-map for this case. You should be able to do the following:

pendingWritesCallbacks.get(largestPendingBatchId).getTask().onCompleteListener(() -> userTask.getResult())

Note that this introduces a dependency on other listeners that a user might already have added to the task, but that is likely fine.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMHO., i found this harder to understand, and i don't immediately see benefits of chaining tasks this way.

I can be wrong though, but I'd like to see if more people find it better this way.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's fine to stick with the multi-map.

} else {
pendingWritesCallbacks.put(largestPendingBatchId, Lists.newArrayList(userTask));
}
}

/** Resolves tasks waiting for this batch id to get acknowledged by server, if there is any. */
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/is/are/

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

private void resolveTasksAwaitingForPendingWritesIfAny(int batchId) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: This is a very Objective-C name. Have you considered making this just resolvePendingWritesTasks or something similar?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

if (pendingWritesCallbacks.containsKey(batchId)) {
for (TaskCompletionSource<Void> task : pendingWritesCallbacks.get(batchId)) {
task.setResult(null);
}

pendingWritesCallbacks.remove(batchId);
}
}

private void failOutstandingPendingWritesAwaitingTasks() {
for (Map.Entry<Integer, List<TaskCompletionSource<Void>>> entry :
pendingWritesCallbacks.entrySet()) {
for (TaskCompletionSource<Void> task : entry.getValue()) {
task.setException(
new FirebaseFirestoreException(
"'waitForPendingWrites' task is cancelled due to User change.",
FirebaseFirestoreException.Code.CANCELLED));
}
}

pendingWritesCallbacks.clear();
}

/** Resolves the task corresponding to this write result. */
private void notifyUser(int batchId, @Nullable Status status) {
Map<Integer, TaskCompletionSource<Void>> userTasks = mutationUserCallbacks.get(currentUser);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -565,6 +620,7 @@ public void handleCredentialChange(User user) {
// Notify local store and emit any resulting events from swapping out the mutation queue.
ImmutableSortedMap<DocumentKey, MaybeDocument> changes = localStore.handleUserChange(user);
emitNewSnapsAndNotifyLocalStore(changes, /*remoteEvent=*/ null);
failOutstandingPendingWritesAwaitingTasks();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ideally, we would want to fail these Tasks before we raise the new snapshots for the newly signed in user. That way, we handle the callbacks for the old user before invoking any callbacks that affect the new user.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

}

// Notify remote store so it can restart its streams.
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -282,6 +282,14 @@ public ImmutableSortedMap<DocumentKey, MaybeDocument> rejectBatch(int batchId) {
});
}

/**
* Returns the largest (latest) batch id in mutation queue that is pending server response.
* Returns 0 if the queue is empty.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we return -1 to clearly differentiate an empty queue and the case where we are writing for the first write? Returning 0 requires some internal knowledge about how we assign batch IDs. What's even better is that we have a constant for this:

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When would you need this information, when is checking if it's -1 or 0 helpful?

If we don't know a case when this will be useful, i'd like to keep the abstraction simple.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are checking for this constant in registerPendingWritesTask().

If you use -1 (or rather the existing concept of MutationBatch.UNKNOWN) it is apparent that this is a special sentinel value. -1 indicates right away that it is not a valid batch ID.

0, on the other hand, could very well be a valid batch ID. It is not obvious that we decided (or rather that Proto3 decided for us) that the first valid batch ID should be 1.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Got it. Done.

*/
public int getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would advocate for being lazy here and name this consistently between the mutation batch API and the local store API.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

return mutationQueue.getLargestUnacknowledgedBatchId();
}

/** Returns the last recorded stream token for the current user. */
public ByteString getLastStreamToken() {
return mutationQueue.getLastStreamToken();
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -187,6 +187,11 @@ public MutationBatch getNextMutationBatchAfterBatchId(int batchId) {
return queue.size() > index ? queue.get(index) : null;
}

@Override
public int getLargestUnacknowledgedBatchId() {
return queue.size() == 0 ? 0 : nextBatchId - 1;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Google style guide generally recommends using isEmpty(), since it always runs in O(1).

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

}

@Override
public List<MutationBatch> getAllMutationBatches() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(queue);
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -73,6 +73,12 @@ MutationBatch addMutationBatch(
@Nullable
MutationBatch getNextMutationBatchAfterBatchId(int batchId);

/**
* @return The largest (latest) batch id in mutation queue for the current user that is pending
* server response, 0 if the queue is empty.
*/
int getLargestUnacknowledgedBatchId();

/** Returns all mutation batches in the mutation queue. */
// TODO: PERF: Current consumer only needs mutated keys; if we can provide that
// cheaply, we should replace this.
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -249,6 +249,16 @@ public MutationBatch getNextMutationBatchAfterBatchId(int batchId) {
.firstValue(row -> decodeInlineMutationBatch(row.getInt(0), row.getBlob(1)));
}

@Override
public int getLargestUnacknowledgedBatchId() {
if (isEmpty()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: In case the mutation queue is not empty, you are running a very similar query twice.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed.

return 0;
}
return db.query("SELECT MAX(batch_id) FROM mutations " + "WHERE uid = ?")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: s/" + "//

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

.binding(uid)
.firstValue(row -> row.getInt(0));
}

@Override
public List<MutationBatch> getAllMutationBatches() {
List<MutationBatch> result = new ArrayList<>();
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ private void handleWatchStreamClose(Status status) {
}
}

private boolean canUseNetwork() {
public boolean canUseNetwork() {
// PORTING NOTE: This method exists mostly because web also has to take into account primary
// vs. secondary state.
return networkEnabled;
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1143,4 +1143,21 @@ public void testHandlesPatchMutationWithTransformThenRemoteEvent() {
assertChanged(doc("foo/bar", 1, map("sum", 1), Document.DocumentState.LOCAL_MUTATIONS));
assertContains(doc("foo/bar", 1, map("sum", 1), Document.DocumentState.LOCAL_MUTATIONS));
}

@Test
public void testGetHighestUnacknowledgedBatchIdReturnsExpectedResult() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: Maybe remove ReturnsExpectedResult, since it doesn't add too much to the descriptiveness.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

assertEquals(0, localStore.getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId());

writeMutation(setMutation("foo/bar", map("abc", 123)));
assertEquals(1, localStore.getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId());

writeMutation(patchMutation("foo/bar", map("abc", 321)));
assertEquals(2, localStore.getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId());

acknowledgeMutation(1);
assertEquals(2, localStore.getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId());

rejectMutation();
assertEquals(0, localStore.getHighestUnacknowledgedBatchId());
}
}