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

[ISSUE #1553]🔥Optimize rocketmq-namesrv crate DefaultRequestProcessor error handle⚡️ #1561

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2024

Conversation

mxsm
Copy link
Owner

@mxsm mxsm commented Dec 5, 2024

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1553

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced error handling in request processing, allowing for better management of success and error states.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved clarity and conciseness in the handling of request processing results.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request primarily focus on enhancing error handling in the process_request methods of both the NameServerRequestProcessor and DefaultRequestProcessor structs. The DefaultRequestProcessor now returns a Result<Option<RemotingCommand>> instead of an Option<RemotingCommand>, allowing for more robust error management. The NameServerRequestProcessor has also been updated to simplify error handling by using an intermediate variable to store results. These modifications improve the clarity and consistency of the request processing logic.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor.rs Modified process_request method to use an intermediate variable for result handling.
rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs Updated process_request method return type from Option<RemotingCommand> to crate::Result<Option<RemotingCommand>>, enhancing error handling.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Optimize error handling in DefaultRequestProcessor (#1553)

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

enhancement, auto merge, AI review first, ready to review, waiting-review

Suggested reviewers

  • TeslaRustor
  • SpaceXCN

Poem

🐇 In the land of code where rabbits play,
Enhancements bloom like flowers in May.
Error handling shines, clear and bright,
With each request processed just right.
Hops of joy in every line,
For clearer paths, our code will shine! 🌟


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.

@RocketmqRustBot RocketmqRustBot added this to the v0.4.0 milestone Dec 5, 2024
@RocketmqRustBot RocketmqRustBot added the enhancement⚡️ New feature or request label Dec 5, 2024
@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs (1)

114-114: Consider propagating errors from handler methods

While the return type now supports error handling, the individual handler methods (like put_kv_config, get_kv_config, etc.) still return RemotingCommand directly. Consider updating these methods to return Result<RemotingCommand> for consistent error handling throughout the codebase.

Example refactor for one method:

- fn put_kv_config(&mut self, request: RemotingCommand) -> RemotingCommand {
+ fn put_kv_config(&mut self, request: RemotingCommand) -> crate::Result<RemotingCommand> {
    let request_header = request
        .decode_command_custom_header::<PutKVConfigRequestHeader>()
-       .expect("decode PutKVConfigRequestHeader failed");
+       .map_err(|e| crate::Error::from(e))?;
    
    if request_header.namespace.is_empty() || request_header.key.is_empty() {
-       return RemotingCommand::create_response_command_with_code(
+       return Ok(RemotingCommand::create_response_command_with_code(
            RemotingSysResponseCode::SystemError,
        )
-       .set_remark(CheetahString::from_static_str("namespace or key is empty"));
+       .set_remark(CheetahString::from_static_str("namespace or key is empty")));
    }
    // ... rest of the implementation
}
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f80f3a8 and 12a077b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor.rs (1 hunks)
  • rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor.rs (1)

50-60: Well-structured error handling refactoring!

The introduction of the intermediate result variable and moving map_err outside the match block improves code clarity and ensures consistent error handling across all code paths. This is a good example of idiomatic Rust error handling.

rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs (1)

78-78: Improved error handling with explicit Result type!

The change from Option<RemotingCommand> to crate::Result<Option<RemotingCommand>> makes error handling more explicit and allows for better error propagation.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 25.00%. Comparing base (f80f3a8) to head (12a077b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor.rs 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
...namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1561   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   24.99%   25.00%           
=======================================
  Files         451      451           
  Lines       59884    59879    -5     
=======================================
  Hits        14970    14970           
+ Misses      44914    44909    -5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot merged commit 1892a08 into main Dec 5, 2024
24 of 25 checks passed
@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot added approved PR has approved and removed ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR labels Dec 5, 2024
@mxsm mxsm deleted the op-1553 branch December 6, 2024 01:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AI review first Ai review pr first approved PR has approved auto merge enhancement⚡️ New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Enhancement⚡️] Optimize rocketmq-namesrv crate DefaultRequestProcessor error handle
4 participants