[ISSUE #1742]⚡️Enhancement OrderInfo struct add some methods #1744
Conversation
|
🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥 |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
AI review first
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on enhancing the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
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
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
rocketmq-broker/src/offset/manager/consumer_order_info_manager.rs (3)
222-232: Simplify loop by removing unnecessaryenumerateinneed_blockThe use of
enumerateinfor (i, _) in (0..num).enumerate()is unnecessary because0..numalready provides the indices. You can simplify the loop by iterating directly over the range.Apply this diff to simplify the loop:
-for (i, _) in (0..num).enumerate() { +for i in 0..num {
246-260: Simplify loop by removing unnecessaryenumerateinget_lock_free_timestampSimilarly, in the
get_lock_free_timestampmethod, the loop can be simplified by removing the unnecessaryenumerate.Apply this diff to simplify the loop:
-for (i, _) in (0..self.offset_list.len()).enumerate() { +for i in 0..self.offset_list.len() {
399-407: Improve test coverage by checking more scenarios inneed_blocktestThe test
need_block_returns_false_for_empty_offset_listchecks only for an emptyoffset_list. Consider adding tests for other scenarios, such as whenattempt_idmatches, whencurrent_timeis beforenext_visible_time, and when offsets are acknowledged or not.Adding more comprehensive tests will ensure that
need_blockbehaves correctly under various conditions.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/offset/manager/consumer_order_info_manager.rs(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/offset/manager/consumer_order_info_manager.rs (1)
126-126: Good use of encapsulation with update_offset_next_visible_time
The call to order_info.update_offset_next_visible_time(queue_offset, next_visible_time); enhances encapsulation by moving the update logic into the OrderInfo struct. This improves code maintainability and readability.
| pub fn is_not_ack(&self, offset_index: usize) -> bool { | ||
| (self.commit_offset_bit & (1 << offset_index)) == 0 | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential undefined behavior when shifting bits in is_not_ack
In the is_not_ack method, shifting 1 << offset_index can cause undefined behavior if offset_index is 64 or greater, since u64 has 64 bits. Shifting by an amount equal to or greater than the type's size is not allowed and will panic in Rust.
Ensure that offset_index is less than 64 to prevent overflow:
+if offset_index >= 64 {
+ // Handle the error, e.g., return false or panic with a meaningful message
+ return false;
+}
(self.commit_offset_bit & (1 << offset_index)) == 0Alternatively, use checked shifting:
if let Some(bit) = (1u64).checked_shl(offset_index as u32) {
(self.commit_offset_bit & bit) == 0
} else {
// Handle the error
false
}| for &offset in &pre_offset_list { | ||
| pre_queue_offset_set.insert(Self::get_queue_offset_from_list( | ||
| &pre_offset_list, | ||
| offset as usize, | ||
| )); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possible misuse of offset value as index in merge_offset_consumed_count
In the merge_offset_consumed_count method, when iterating over pre_offset_list, offset (a queue offset value) is being cast to usize and used as an index in get_queue_offset_from_list. This can cause an out-of-bounds access if offset as usize exceeds the length of pre_offset_list.
Consider iterating over the indices instead of the values to ensure valid indexing.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
-for &offset in &pre_offset_list {
- pre_queue_offset_set.insert(Self::get_queue_offset_from_list(
- &pre_offset_list,
- offset as usize,
- ));
+for (index, _) in pre_offset_list.iter().enumerate() {
+ pre_queue_offset_set.insert(Self::get_queue_offset_from_list(
+ &pre_offset_list,
+ index,
+ ));
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| for &offset in &pre_offset_list { | |
| pre_queue_offset_set.insert(Self::get_queue_offset_from_list( | |
| &pre_offset_list, | |
| offset as usize, | |
| )); | |
| } | |
| for (index, _) in pre_offset_list.iter().enumerate() { | |
| pre_queue_offset_set.insert(Self::get_queue_offset_from_list( | |
| &pre_offset_list, | |
| index, | |
| )); | |
| } |
| pub fn build_offset_list(queue_offset_list: Vec<u64>) -> Vec<u64> { | ||
| let mut simple = Vec::new(); | ||
| if queue_offset_list.len() == 1 { | ||
| simple.extend(queue_offset_list); | ||
| return simple; | ||
| } | ||
| let first = queue_offset_list[0]; | ||
| simple.push(first); | ||
| for item in queue_offset_list.iter().skip(1) { | ||
| simple.push(*item - first); | ||
| } | ||
| simple | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential integer underflow in build_offset_list
In the build_offset_list method, subtracting first from *item where both are u64 may result in integer underflow if *item is less than first. Since u64 is an unsigned integer, this underflow will cause a panic in debug builds or wrap around in release builds, leading to incorrect results.
Consider validating that each *item is greater than or equal to first before performing the subtraction, or handle the case where *item is less than first.
for item in queue_offset_list.iter().skip(1) {
+ if *item < first {
+ // Handle the error, e.g., return an error or skip the value
+ }
simple.push(*item - first);
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1744 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 28.18% 28.24% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 466 466
Lines 64493 64671 +178
==========================================
+ Hits 18175 18265 +90
- Misses 46318 46406 +88 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
rocketmq-broker/src/offset/manager/consumer_order_info_manager.rs (2)
210-234: Consider refactoring time calculation logicThe time calculation logic is duplicated between
need_blockandget_lock_free_timestamp. Consider extracting the common logic into a private helper method.+ fn calculate_next_visible_time(&self, offset_index: usize) -> u64 { + let mut next_visible_time = self.pop_time + self.invisible_time.unwrap_or(0); + if let Some(time) = self.offset_next_visible_time.get(&self.get_queue_offset(offset_index)) { + next_visible_time = *time; + } + next_visible_time + }Also applies to: 241-261
383-459: Consider adding more test casesWhile the current test coverage is good, consider adding these test cases:
- Test
build_offset_listwith potentially underflowing offsets- Test
need_blockandget_lock_free_timestampwith edge cases around visibility times#[test] fn test_build_offset_list_with_potential_underflow() { let queue_offset_list = vec![5, 3]; // Second offset less than first // Verify the handling of potential underflow } #[test] fn test_need_block_visibility_edge_cases() { let mut order_info = OrderInfo { pop_time: get_current_millis(), invisible_time: Some(1000), // ... other fields }; // Test cases around visibility boundaries }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/offset/manager/consumer_order_info_manager.rs(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
rocketmq-broker/src/offset/manager/consumer_order_info_manager.rs (5)
19-19: LGTM: New imports are appropriate
The added imports for HashSet and TimeUtils are necessary for the new functionality and follow Rust's conventions.
Also applies to: 26-26
126-126: LGTM: Improved encapsulation
Moving the offset update logic to OrderInfo::update_offset_next_visible_time improves encapsulation and maintainability.
323-328: LGTM: Proper bounds checking for bit shifting
The implementation correctly checks for the bounds before performing bit shifting operations.
185-197:
Fix potential integer underflow in build_offset_list
The subtraction operation *item - first could underflow if *item < first.
171-381: Verify usage of OrderInfo methods across the codebase
Let's verify that all callers of these methods handle the new behavior correctly.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response since I have enough information to verify the changes:
OrderInfo implementation is safe and properly integrated with the codebase
The code changes in OrderInfo are well-integrated with the rest of the codebase:
- The time-related fields (
pop_time,invisible_time,next_visible_time) are consistently used across the codebase, particularly inChangeInvisibleTimeProcessorand consumer implementations - The offset management methods are properly used by the broker components, especially in
consumer_order_info_manager.rs - The blocking and visibility time calculations align with the broker's message processing flow
- All method signatures and data structures are consistent with their usage in other components
The implementation shows proper handling of:
- Time-based message visibility
- Offset tracking and management
- Order preservation
- Consumer group coordination
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of OrderInfo methods
echo "Searching for OrderInfo method calls..."
rg -A 2 "build_offset_list|need_block|get_lock_free_timestamp|update_offset_next_visible_time|get_next_offset|get_queue_offset|is_not_ack|merge_offset_consumed_count" --type rust
# Search for potential time-related issues
echo "Checking for time-related calculations..."
rg -A 2 "pop_time|invisible_time|next_visible_time" --type rust
Length of output: 74973
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
approved
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #1742
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit