Skip to content
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

refactor(store): keep batch.Close error handle logic consistance #21812

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 26, 2024

Conversation

lfz941
Copy link
Contributor

@lfz941 lfz941 commented Sep 19, 2024

Description

This PR includes two changes:

  1. The error handling logic of batch.Close() in func deleteRemovedStoreKeys is different from others, which maybe lose the original error info. Let's keep them consistance.
  2. Log error info when batch.Close() is error in func flushMetadata

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved error handling during batch closure in the metadata flushing process to prevent silent failures.
    • Enhanced error reporting in the metadata handling process to preserve original error context.

@lfz941 lfz941 requested review from cool-develope, kocubinski and a team as code owners September 19, 2024 02:39
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 19, 2024

📝 Walkthrough
📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes involve enhancements to error handling in two functions: flushMetadata in the Store struct and deleteRemovedStoreKeys in the MetadataStore struct. The updates ensure that errors during batch closure are properly captured and reported without overwriting previous errors, thereby improving the robustness of the error handling mechanism in the respective functions.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
store/rootmulti/store.go Enhanced error handling in flushMetadata function to log errors during batch closure.
store/v2/commitment/metadata.go Modified error handling in deleteRemovedStoreKeys to preserve original error context when closing batch.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • kocubinski
  • cool-develope
  • tac0turtle

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 09b74dd and 5602fbd.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • store/v2/commitment/metadata.go (2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • store/v2/commitment/metadata.go

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@lfz941 lfz941 force-pushed the chore/error-handle-consistance branch from 3f5689c to 80dda92 Compare September 20, 2024 14:40
@@ -158,8 +158,9 @@ func (m *MetadataStore) deleteRemovedStoreKeys(version uint64, removeStore func(

batch := m.kv.NewBatch()
defer func() {
if berr := batch.Close(); berr != nil {
err = berr
cErr := batch.Close()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

these are functionally identical, why the change?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If batch.Write() returns error and batch.Close() returns error too, the error returned by batch.Write would be covered.

This change just keeps consistant with others: The error returned by batch.Close should be returned when original err is nil

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should errors.Join them then to not lose any error.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@julienrbrt Hi sir, I have changed to use errors.Join now, thanks for your review

@lfz941 lfz941 force-pushed the chore/error-handle-consistance branch 2 times, most recently from f9ba1b8 to 3ce6972 Compare September 23, 2024 01:09
@lfz941 lfz941 force-pushed the chore/error-handle-consistance branch 4 times, most recently from 23b0c20 to 92f0a4c Compare September 25, 2024 07:20
@lfz941 lfz941 force-pushed the chore/error-handle-consistance branch from 92f0a4c to 09b74dd Compare September 25, 2024 14:27
@julienrbrt julienrbrt added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 26, 2024
@julienrbrt julienrbrt changed the title refactor: keep batch.Close error handle logic consistance refactor(store): keep batch.Close error handle logic consistance Sep 26, 2024
Merged via the queue into cosmos:main with commit 648ef5f Sep 26, 2024
72 of 74 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants