Change:
// updateIndices modifies the objects location in the managed indexes, if this is an update, you must provide an oldObj // updateIndices must be called from a function that already has a lock on the cache <del> func (c *threadSafeMap) updateIndices(oldObj interface{}, newObj interface{}, key string) error { </del> <ins> func (c *threadSafeMap) updateIndices(oldObj interface{}, newObj interface{}, key string) { </ins> // if we got an old object, we need to remove it before we add it again if oldObj != nil { c.deleteFromIndices(oldObj, key)

Discussion:
Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST? (choose one): BUG Kubernetes version (use ): k8s1.3.5. still exist in 1.6 What happened: when exec threadSafeMap.Index func, the returned items contain nil object. That is to say, index is in threadSafeMap but the corresponding has already been deleted. What you expected to happen: when object is deleted from threadSafeMap, all its index must be deleted. How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): Suppose we init threadSafeMap with two indexers: indexFunc1 and indexFunc2. Obviously, indexFunc may return error if the object has something wrong or some other reasons. when we add an object, will first add the object to , then compute the index and add the index into threadSafe.indices. when we delete the object, will first delete the index from indices, then delete it from Suppose IndexFunc1(object) return error and indexFunc2(object) works well. I think this circumstance is absolutely possible to happen. Also we know that the order to exec indexFunc is not decided. Feature of iterating map. When we add object, suppose first exec indexFunc2, and then exec indexFunc1. So the index of indexFunc2 is to indices. But the index of indexFunc1 is not , because indexFunc1(obj) return err. Then we delete the object, suppose first exec indexFunc1. It will return error and IndexFunc2 has no chance to run. So the corresponding index indexFunc2(obj) can't be removed. But then the object is removed from items. This problem may result in subtle problems. For example, when we exec threadSafeMap.Index( ) func the returned list may include nil object. Anything else we need to know The reason is that index is still is threadSafeMap but the corresponding object has already been removed. We must clear all corresponding indexs when delete object. And the reason why index is not deleted is that when for-range map, the order is not decided.
Who can help me? Do i miss something important or misunderstand it ?
, can you share a unit test to show it? I'd like to help on it.
Thank you for your help. I think i have decribed the condition resulting in the bug indetail.

Be simple, because the order of exec indexFunc is random when update indices, and some function don't care the error returned, the obj is deleted but corresponding indices is still in it. NOTE: the obj is deleted but corresponding indices is still in it So when we run index func, the returned list may contain nil object. Because when get obj from threadsafemap with indice, not care whether the obj exist in this map. Then nil object .
. I am sure this problem exists. And i think we can find a better way to deal with it.
/sig api-machinery threadSafeMap is in client-go
/kind bug
Opened a PR with a fix.
In my understanding, should be deterministic, could you elaborate more how your IndexFunc implemented? If an object can not be called on this , then the question is, how could it exist in at the first beginning?
threadSafeStore should tolerate some bad conditions and deal with it gracefully, instead generating strange and confusing phenomenon. ThreadSafeStore can contain mutiple index funcs. If one of them is not implemented very well, or one of objects we pass to it has something wrong, STRANGE AND CONFUSING phenomenon happens, see what I said above.
That's the point I would like to know more, the call on an object should succeed or fail unconditionally(deterministic).
wechat
I also think index function must be a pure function. See my comment on the pr