fix: properly check workers container #5
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Valery Piashchynski <piashchynski.valery@gmail.com>
WalkthroughThe changes involve renaming a job in the GitHub Actions workflow, modifying linter configurations, and enhancing comments across various Go source files. Additionally, test cases have been updated to reflect new expected behaviors, and the internal representation of worker management has been simplified by changing a data structure. Overall, these modifications aim to improve code clarity, maintainability, and functionality without altering the core logic of the application. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant WorkerWatcher
participant Worker
User->>WorkerWatcher: Request to manage workers
WorkerWatcher->>Worker: Allocate worker
WorkerWatcher->>Worker: Remove worker
WorkerWatcher->>Worker: Execute task
Worker->>WorkerWatcher: Task completed
WorkerWatcher->>User: Return task result
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
worker_watcher/worker_watcher.go (1)
Line range hint
101-140: Complexity in worker retrieval logic.The
Takemethod has a complex logic flow, especially in handling different worker states. While the method handles various edge cases, such as stopping a worker if it's not in theReadyState, the complexity of this method could be reduced. Consider refactoring to simplify the logic and improve readability.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (13)
- .github/workflows/linters.yml (1 hunks)
- .golangci.yml (1 hunks)
- internal/protocol.go (1 hunks)
- ipc/socket/socket.go (1 hunks)
- pool/static_pool/pool_test.go (2 hunks)
- pool/static_pool/supervisor.go (6 hunks)
- pool/static_pool/supervisor_test.go (1 hunks)
- process/isolate.go (1 hunks)
- state/process/state.go (1 hunks)
- worker/options.go (1 hunks)
- worker/worker.go (1 hunks)
- worker_watcher/container/channel/vec.go (2 hunks)
- worker_watcher/worker_watcher.go (18 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (8)
- .github/workflows/linters.yml
- internal/protocol.go
- ipc/socket/socket.go
- pool/static_pool/supervisor.go
- process/isolate.go
- state/process/state.go
- worker/options.go
- worker/worker.go
Additional comments not posted (15)
worker_watcher/container/channel/vec.go (1)
44-44: Comment rephrased for clarity.The change from "channel is full" to "the channel is full" enhances readability and is a good practice for maintaining clear code documentation.
.golangci.yml (1)
42-42: Approved change fromexportloopreftocopyloopvar.The replacement of the
exportloopreflinter withcopyloopvarin the.golangci.ymlfile is noted. This change shifts the focus of linting from checking pointers to loop variables to checking copies of loop variables, which can help prevent common mistakes related to loop variable handling in Go.Please ensure that this change aligns with the project's coding standards and verify its impact on the codebase by reviewing recent linting outputs or running a comparative lint analysis:
worker_watcher/worker_watcher.go (10)
29-30: Refactor: Change in data structure for worker management.The change from
sync.Mapto a standard Go map forworkersis significant. This change simplifies the code but requires careful handling of concurrency which has been addressed by adding mutex locks around map accesses. This is a good change as it simplifies the code and potentially improves performance by removing the overhead ofsync.Mapwhere not necessary.
49-49: Initialization of workers map with capacity.Initializing the
workersmap with a capacity equal tonumWorkersis a good practice as it optimizes memory allocation by allocating enough space for the expected number of workers initially.
61-61: Correct handling of worker addition.The addition of workers to the
workersmap using their PID as the key ensures that each worker can be uniquely identified and accessed efficiently. This is a crucial change for the management of workers and is implemented correctly.
80-80: Enhanced error handling and logging in worker removal.The addition of a warning log when attempting to remove the last worker is a good practice as it provides clear feedback on the operation's failure. The use of locking around the deletion operation ensures thread safety when modifying the
workersmap.Also applies to: 84-96
159-174: Handling of worker allocation with timeout.The implementation of a retry mechanism with a timeout for worker allocation is robust. Using a ticker to attempt reallocation every second until the timeout is reached or a worker is successfully allocated is a good approach. However, ensure that the error handling and logging are sufficient to diagnose issues during worker allocation failures.
195-198: Proper synchronization in worker allocation.The use of locking when adding a new worker to the
workersmap is correctly implemented. This ensures that the addition operation is thread-safe, which is crucial given the concurrent nature of the application.
Line range hint
235-270: Reset method implementation review.The
Resetmethod's implementation, which waits for all workers to be in the container before proceeding, is logically sound. The use of a ticker to periodically check this condition and the detailed handling of worker states during the reset process are well-implemented. However, the complexity and potential for deadlocks should be carefully evaluated, especially in high-load scenarios.
Line range hint
310-354: Thorough handling in the Destroy method.The
Destroymethod's implementation, which ensures all workers are in the container before proceeding with destruction, is robust. The method handles concurrency well, using locks to ensure thread safety. This method's thoroughness in ensuring all workers are properly managed during destruction is commendable.
398-400: Efficient listing of workers.The
Listmethod provides an efficient way to retrieve a list of all workers. The use of read locks during the operation ensures that the method is thread-safe. This implementation is straightforward and effective.
412-414: Correct synchronization in worker removal.The use of locking when removing a worker from the
workersmap ensures that the operation is thread-safe. This is a critical aspect of managing workers in a concurrent environment and is implemented correctly here.pool/static_pool/supervisor_test.go (1)
202-204: Change in assertion approved, verify across the system.The change from
assert.Error(t, err)toassert.NoError(t, err)reflects a significant shift in the expected behavior of theExecmethod after removing a worker. This change should be verified across the system to ensure it aligns with the intended functionality and does not introduce regressions in other parts of the system.Run the following script to verify the function usage:
Verification successful
Change in test assertion is contextually consistent.
The change from
assert.Error(t, err)toassert.NoError(t, err)in thesupervisor_test.gofile aligns with other uses of theExecmethod where no error is expected. However, the behavior ofExecis context-dependent, as evidenced by the presence of bothassert.NoErrorandassert.Errorin different contexts. Ensure that the change aligns with the intended functionality in the specific context of the test.
- Verify the change in the specific context of the test to ensure it aligns with the intended functionality.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `Exec` method match the new expectation. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new expectation. rg --type go -A 5 $'Exec'Length of output: 67905
pool/static_pool/pool_test.go (2)
49-49: Approved: Enhanced error checking inTest_NewPool.The addition of
require.NoError(t, err)ensures that the test fails immediately if an error occurs during the execution of theExecmethod, which enhances the test's robustness.
173-175: Approved: Updated assertions inTest_StaticPool_RemoveWorker.The changes from checking for an error to confirming that no error occurred when executing the
Execmethod after a worker has been removed reflect an important shift in the expected behavior of the pool. This suggests an enhancement in the pool's resilience and functionality.Please ensure that the underlying logic in the pool's worker management supports this new expected behavior, particularly in scenarios where multiple workers are removed.
| @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ func NewVector() *Vec { | |||
| vec := &Vec{ | |||
| destroy: 0, | |||
| reset: 0, | |||
| workers: make(chan *worker.Process, 1000), | |||
| workers: make(chan *worker.Process, 500), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Buffer size reduction in workers channel.
Reducing the buffer size from 1000 to 500 in the workers channel could potentially lead to more frequent blocking, especially under high load. This change should be carefully evaluated to ensure it does not adversely affect the performance of the system under peak conditions.
Consider performing load testing to evaluate the impact of this change on the system's performance and concurrency behavior.
Reason for This PR
Description of Changes
License Acceptance
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the MIT license.
PR Checklist
[Author TODO: Meet these criteria.][Reviewer TODO: Verify that these criteria are met. Request changes if not]git commit -s).CHANGELOG.md.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation