[ISSUE #2325]🐛 Fix build SubscriptionData with ExpressionType::TAG🧑‍💻

[mxsm]

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #2325

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Updated message processing logic to ensure consistent TAG expression type handling during retry subscription data construction.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a modification in the PopMessageProcessor struct's process_request method, specifically altering how the expression type is handled when building subscription data for retry messages. The change ensures that when no specific expression type is provided, the system defaults to using a TAG expression type, potentially addressing an issue with subscription data construction.

Changes

File	Change Summary
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/pop_message_processor.rs	Modified process_request method to default retry_subscription_data expression type to TAG

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Fix build SubscriptionData with ExpressionType::TAG [#2325]	✅

Possibly related PRs

• [ISSUE #2323]🐛Fix PopMessageProcessor build SubscriptionData error🧑‍💻 #2324: Modification of process_request method in PopMessageProcessor with similar expression type handling

Suggested labels

bug🐛, auto merge, ready to review, waiting-review, AI review first

Suggested reviewers

• TeslaRustor
• SpaceXCN
• rocketmq-rust-bot

Poem

🐰 A Rabbit's Ode to TAG Expressions 🚀

In the realm of messages swift and bright,
A TAG expression takes its flight,
With a hop and a skip through code so neat,
Making subscription data complete!
RocketMQ's magic, now running right! 🌟

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d735f61 and 4aa5465.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• rocketmq-broker/src/processor/pop_message_processor.rs (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (9)

• GitHub Check: build (windows-latest, nightly)
• GitHub Check: build (windows-latest, stable)
• GitHub Check: build (macos-latest, nightly)
• GitHub Check: build (macos-latest, stable)
• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: auto-approve
• GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, nightly)
• GitHub Check: build
• GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, stable)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

rocketmq-broker/src/processor/pop_message_processor.rs (1)

414-414: LGTM! Verify impact on existing consumers.

The change to enforce TAG expression type for retry subscription data aligns with the PR objective. However, please ensure this doesn't break existing consumers that might expect different expression types for retry messages.

Run the following script to check for any consumers using non-TAG expression types with retry topics:

✅ Verification successful

Verified: TAG expression type enforcement is safe for retry topics

The codebase shows consistent retry topic handling patterns with no evidence of alternative expression types being used. The change standardizes the behavior without introducing breaking changes.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for retry topic subscriptions with non-TAG expression types
# that might be affected by this change.

# Test: Search for retry topic subscriptions
ast-grep --pattern 'FilterAPI::build($topic, $_, $exp_type)'

# Test: Search for retry topic consumers
rg -A 5 'build_pop_retry_topic'

Length of output: 11875

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @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.

[rocketmq-rust-bot]

🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉！

💡CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥！

Note

🚨The code review suggestions from CodeRabbit are to be used as a reference only, and the PR submitter can decide whether to make changes based on their own judgment. Ultimately, the project management personnel will conduct the final code review💥.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.29%. Comparing base (d735f61) to head (4aa5465).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...etmq-broker/src/processor/pop_message_processor.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2326   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   28.29%   28.29%           
=======================================
  Files         504      504           
  Lines       72405    72405           
=======================================
  Hits        20485    20485           
  Misses      51920    51920           

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

[rocketmq-rust-bot]

LGTM