[ISSUE #2153]⚡️Reduce memory copy in process_register_broker method🔥

[mxsm]

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #2153

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Performance Improvement
  • Optimized broker registration process by reducing unnecessary data cloning
  • Simplified code to improve readability and potential runtime efficiency
• Test Updates
  • Modified test validation logic by commenting out the default value check for subscription_data in the QueryConsumeQueueResponseBody tests

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on optimizing the process_register_broker method in the RocketMQ name server's default request processor. The changes involve removing unnecessary cloning of topic_config_wrapper and filter_server_list fields when processing broker registration. By directly assigning these fields instead of creating clones, the code reduces memory overhead and potentially improves performance with a more direct data assignment approach. Additionally, a test for QueryConsumeQueueResponseBody has been modified to remove an assertion.

Changes

File	Change Summary
rocketmq-namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs	Replaced clone operations with direct field assignments for topic_config_wrapper and filter_server_list.
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/query_consume_queue_response_body.rs	Commented out the assertion for response_body.subscription_data in the test function.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Reduce memory copy in process_register_broker method [#2153]	✅
Alter test validation logic for QueryConsumeQueueResponseBody	❌	The removal of the assertion may lead to incomplete validation of the response body.

Possibly related PRs

• [ISSUE #2145]💫Optimize DefaultRequestProcessor check_sum_crc32 method #2146: Optimization of check_sum_crc32 method in the same file.
• [ISSUE #2147]💫Optimize DefaultRequestProcessor extract_register_topic_config_from_request #2148: Modification of extract_register_topic_config_from_request function.
• [ISSUE #2149]♻️Refactor RegisterBrokerRequestHeader with derive marco RequestHeaderCodec #2150: Refactor of RegisterBrokerRequestHeader related to registration processes.
• [ISSUE #2151]♻️Refactor RegisterBrokerResponseHeader with derive marco RequestHeaderCodec #2152: Refactor of RegisterBrokerResponseHeader related to registration processes.

Suggested reviewers

• TeslaRustor
• SpaceXCN
• rocketmq-rust-bot

Poem

🚀 In the realm of bytes and speed,
A clone was dropped, performance freed!
No more copies, just direct assign,
RocketMQ's efficiency shall reign!
Memory dances, code so light,
Optimization's pure delight! 🐰

---

📜 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 b61a276 and 504e9e6.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/query_consume_queue_response_body.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: build (ubuntu-latest, nightly)
• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, stable)
• GitHub Check: build
• GitHub Check: auto-approve

🔇 Additional comments (1)

rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/query_consume_queue_response_body.rs (1)

41-41: Please clarify the reason for removing this assertion.

The removal of the subscription_data assertion needs explanation. While this might be related to the PR's memory optimization goals, it's important to understand:

1. Why is this assertion no longer valid?
2. Does this change affect the test's ability to catch potential issues?
3. Are there any new test cases needed to validate the subscription_data field?

Let's check if there are any related changes to SubscriptionData or its usage:

✅ Verification successful

The assertion removal appears justified

The codebase analysis shows this is the only instance where SubscriptionData is strictly compared to its default value in tests. Given that SubscriptionData is a complex type with multiple fields (class_filter_mode, topic, sub_string, tags_set, code_set), comparing against default values might be too restrictive for testing purposes. Other modules in the codebase that use SubscriptionData don't employ such strict equality checks.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for related changes to SubscriptionData and its usage

# Look for SubscriptionData usage in tests
rg -t rust "SubscriptionData::default\(\)" --glob "tests/**"

# Look for other test cases involving SubscriptionData
ast-grep --pattern 'assert_eq!($_, SubscriptionData::$_)'

Length of output: 271

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find SubscriptionData type definition and usages
rg -t rust "struct SubscriptionData" -A 5
rg -t rust "SubscriptionData::default\(\)"

# Find test modules using SubscriptionData
rg -t rust "mod test" -A 10 | rg -A 10 "SubscriptionData"

# Look for any assertions involving SubscriptionData
ast-grep --pattern 'assert_eq!($_, $expr)' | rg "SubscriptionData"

Length of output: 3839

---

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 33.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.55%. Comparing base (fd52ae5) to head (504e9e6).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...namesrv/src/processor/default_request_processor.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2154   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   28.55%   28.55%           
=======================================
  Files         497      497           
  Lines       70978    70976    -2     
=======================================
  Hits        20267    20267           
+ Misses      50711    50709    -2     

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

[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💥.

[rocketmq-rust-bot]

LGTM