{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/issues/40","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/issues/40/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/issues/40/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/issues/40/events","html_url":"https://github.com/otr4j/otr4j/pull/40","id":58669524,"number":40,"title":"Fix and speed up SMPTest","user":{"login":"languitar","id":1336287,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1336287?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar","html_url":"https://github.com/languitar","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":7,"created_at":"2015-02-23T23:47:24Z","updated_at":"2015-02-24T12:35:36Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/pulls/40","html_url":"https://github.com/otr4j/otr4j/pull/40","diff_url":"https://github.com/otr4j/otr4j/pull/40.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/otr4j/otr4j/pull/40.patch"},"body":"SMPTest was slow because awaiting the first lock always timed out. If I understand things correctly, the locks in `DummyClient` were mixed up. This is fixed in a2c2c60. Moreover, this improves the code of SMPTest, which includes asserting that a lock never times out.\r\n\r\nThis will resolve #35."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/issues/comments/75748666","html_url":"https://github.com/otr4j/otr4j/pull/40#issuecomment-75748666","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/otr4j/otr4j/issues/40","id":75748666,"user":{"login":"languitar","id":1336287,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1336287?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar","html_url":"https://github.com/languitar","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/languitar/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-02-24T12:35:36Z","updated_at":"2015-02-24T12:35:36Z","body":"Checkstyle doesn't move anything, but no one complained about the rule not to have end-line comments when I proposed the formatting checks (there are several reasons given why to avoid them: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_misc.html#TrailingComment). So I followed these rules when changing this class. Android formatting doesn't say anything about end-line comments. Neither it encourages them nor does it prevent them."}}