[ISSUE #1577]🍻Replace ConsumeMessageDirectlyResultRequestHeader and ResetOffsetRequestHeader's RpcRequestHeader with TopicRequestHeader #1578
Conversation
…esetOffsetRequestHeader's RpcRequestHeader with TopicRequestHeader
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifying two struct definitions: Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
|
🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥 |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
AI review first
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1578 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 25.28% 25.28% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 457 457
Lines 60310 60310
==========================================
- Hits 15251 15248 -3
- Misses 45059 45062 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/reset_offset_request_header.rs (1)
Line range hint
58-106: Consider adding TopicRequestHeader serialization testWhile the existing tests cover the basic functionality well, consider adding a test case that verifies the serialization/deserialization behavior when topic_request_header is populated with a value.
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/consume_message_directly_result_request_header.rs (1)
Line range hint
41-106: Consider adding TopicRequestHeader interaction testsWhile the current tests are comprehensive for basic functionality, consider adding test cases that:
- Verify behavior when topic_request_header contains data
- Validate interaction between topic_request_header fields and other header fields
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/consume_message_directly_result_request_header.rs(3 hunks)rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/reset_offset_request_header.rs(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/reset_offset_request_header.rs (1)
22-22: LGTM! Clean replacement of RpcRequestHeader with TopicRequestHeader
The change maintains the same structure and serialization behavior while switching to the more specific TopicRequestHeader type.
Also applies to: 39-39
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/consume_message_directly_result_request_header.rs (2)
22-22: LGTM! Consistent implementation with reset_offset_request_header.rs
The changes mirror those in reset_offset_request_header.rs, maintaining consistency across the codebase.
Also applies to: 36-36
Line range hint 22-36: Verify impact of TopicRequestHeader replacement
Let's verify that all consumers of these headers have been updated to handle the new TopicRequestHeader.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that the TopicRequestHeader is consistently used across the codebase and properly integrated with RpcRequestHeader. The search shows that ConsumeMessageDirectlyResultRequestHeader includes TopicRequestHeader as an optional field, and this pattern is consistent with other request headers in the codebase that use similar structures.
No issues found with TopicRequestHeader integration
The codebase shows a consistent pattern where request headers properly handle the TopicRequestHeader structure, and the flattened field is correctly used. The migration appears to be complete and consistent across all consumers.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of both header types to ensure complete migration
echo "Searching for ConsumeMessageDirectlyResultRequestHeader usage..."
rg "ConsumeMessageDirectlyResultRequestHeader" -A 3
echo -e "\nSearching for ResetOffsetRequestHeader usage..."
rg "ResetOffsetRequestHeader" -A 3
echo -e "\nSearching for potential RpcRequestHeader remnants..."
rg "RpcRequestHeader" -A 3
Length of output: 35370
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
approved
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #1577
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests