-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
[ISSUE #1456]🔥Refactor rocketmq-broker crate error handle🚨 #1457
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codebase verification
The 100ms timeout for transaction state checks is too short compared to other timeouts in the codebase
The verification reveals that the 100ms timeout for
send_one_way
in transaction state checks is inconsistent with other timeout configurations in the codebase:BrokerConfig
is set to 6000ms (6 seconds)send_msg_timeout
default to 3000msforward_timeout
is set to 3000msThe current 100ms timeout is significantly lower than these values and could lead to unnecessary transaction verification failures.
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider reviewing the timeout value for transaction state checks
While the error handling change to
BrokerRemotingError
is appropriate, the 100ms timeout forsend_one_way
in transaction state verification seems quite short. This could lead to unnecessary failures in high-load scenarios or when network latency is higher than usual.Let's check if this timeout value is consistent with other transaction-related operations:
Consider increasing the timeout value or making it configurable based on the deployment environment and network conditions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
Length of output: 1825
Script:
Length of output: 35628