Remove node from indexes during GC #191
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications across several classes, primarily focusing on enhancing debugging capabilities. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
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 (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #191 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 45.85% 45.92% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 105 105
Lines 26778 26814 +36
==========================================
+ Hits 12278 12314 +36
Misses 14500 14500 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![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 and nitpick comments (4)
Sources/Document/Json/JSONText.swift (1)
250-260: LGTM! Consider enhancing the debugging documentation.The new debugging methods are well-structured and appropriately scoped. They provide essential visibility into the tree structures which is valuable for garbage collection debugging.
Consider enhancing the documentation to include:
- Example usage scenarios
- Return value interpretation guidelines
- When
nilmight be returned/** * `getTreeByIndex` returns the tree by index for debugging. + * + * Used primarily for debugging garbage collection behavior: + * - Returns nil if text is not initialized + * - Returns the underlying SplayTree for inspecting node weights and structure */Sources/Document/CRDT/CRDTText.swift (1)
316-326: Consider adding documentation about return value usage.While the methods are marked as "for debugging", it would be helpful to add documentation about:
- What these tree structures represent
- How to interpret the returned trees during debugging
- Common debugging scenarios where these methods are useful
This would help other developers effectively use these methods for troubleshooting GC-related issues.
Example documentation:
/** - * `getTreeByIndex` returns the tree by index for debugging. + * `getTreeByIndex` returns the underlying SplayTree structure indexed by position. + * + * This method is useful for debugging scenarios such as: + * - Verifying tree balance after GC operations + * - Inspecting node positions and their relationships + * - Analyzing text fragment distribution *//** - * `getTreeByID` returns the tree by ID for debugging. + * `getTreeByID` returns the underlying LLRBTree structure indexed by node IDs. + * + * This method is useful for debugging scenarios such as: + * - Tracking specific nodes during GC operations + * - Verifying node removal from indexes + * - Analyzing tree structure integrity */Tests/Integration/TextIntegrationTests.swift (1)
241-242: LGTM! The architectural change improves API clarity.The change from direct
checkWeight()togetTreeByIndex()?.checkWeight()better reflects the underlying data structure and improves encapsulation.Consider adding a comment to clarify that this test specifically verifies node weight consistency during garbage collection:
+ // Verify that node weights remain consistent after concurrent modifications and garbage collection let d1Check = await(d1.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.getTreeByIndex()?.checkWeight() ?? false let d2Check = await(d2.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.getTreeByIndex()?.checkWeight() ?? falseTests/Unit/Document/DocumentTests.swift (1)
1059-1083: Test structure looks good, but could benefit from additional assertions.The test effectively verifies the garbage collection behavior for JSONText nodes, but could be enhanced for better clarity and coverage.
Consider these improvements:
func test_should_purge_node_from_indexes_during_GC() async throws { let doc = Document(key: "test-doc") try await doc.update { root, _ in root.k1 = JSONText() } var size = await(doc.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.getTreeByID()?.size XCTAssertEqual(size, 1) try await doc.update { root, _ in (root.k1 as? JSONText)?.edit(0, 0, "ABC") } size = await(doc.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.getTreeByID()?.size XCTAssertEqual(size, 2) try await doc.update { root, _ in (root.k1 as? JSONText)?.edit(1, 3, "") } size = await(doc.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.getTreeByID()?.size XCTAssertEqual(size, 3) await doc.garbageCollect(TimeTicket.max) size = await(doc.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.getTreeByID()?.size XCTAssertEqual(size, 2) + + // Verify the content is still correct after GC + let content = await(doc.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.toString + XCTAssertEqual(content, "A", "Content should be 'A' after deleting 'BC'") + + // Verify we can still edit the text after GC + try await doc.update { root, _ in + (root.k1 as? JSONText)?.edit(1, 1, "Z") + } + let finalContent = await(doc.getRoot().k1 as? JSONText)?.toString + XCTAssertEqual(finalContent, "AZ", "Should be able to append after GC") }The additional assertions would:
- Verify the text content is correct after GC
- Ensure the text remains editable after GC
- Document the expected behavior through assertion messages
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
Sources/Document/CRDT/CRDTText.swift(1 hunks)Sources/Document/CRDT/RGATreeSplit.swift(2 hunks)Sources/Document/Json/JSONText.swift(1 hunks)Tests/Integration/TextIntegrationTests.swift(1 hunks)Tests/Unit/Document/DocumentTests.swift(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
Sources/Document/CRDT/CRDTText.swift (1)
316-326: LGTM! The changes align well with GC requirements.
The new debugging methods complement the existing GC functionality by providing tools to verify node removal from indexes. The implementation maintains CRDT properties and integrates well with the existing codebase.
Let's verify the GC-related changes:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response:
The debugging methods are well-integrated with the GC implementation
The codebase shows a consistent implementation of GC-related functionality:
getTreeByIndexandgetTreeByIDmethods are consistently implemented acrossCRDTText,RGATreeSplit, andJSONText- These methods complement the existing GC functionality:
getGCPairs()collects nodes marked for removal (removedAt != nil)purge()physically removes nodes from indexes- Integration with
CRDTRoot.garbageCollect()for coordinated GC operations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify GC-related implementations across the codebase
# Test 1: Check for consistent implementation of debugging methods
echo "Checking for consistent debugging method implementations..."
rg -l "func getTreeByIndex|func getTreeByID"
# Test 2: Verify GC-related method implementations
echo "Checking GC-related implementations..."
rg "getGCPairs|removedAt|purge"
Length of output: 25366
Sources/Document/CRDT/RGATreeSplit.swift (2)
538-548: LGTM! New debugging methods enhance observability.
The addition of getTreeByIndex() and getTreeByID() methods provides better debugging capabilities, replacing the previous checkWeight() method with more granular access to internal structures.
858-859: Verify complete node removal during garbage collection.
The changes correctly remove nodes from both index trees during GC. This is essential to prevent memory leaks and maintain consistency.
Let's verify that nodes are properly removed from all tracking structures:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response:
Node removal during garbage collection is properly implemented
The purge implementation in RGATreeSplit.swift correctly handles all node cleanup:
- Removes from both index structures (treeByIndex and treeByID)
- Properly nullifies all node references (prev/next and insPrev/insNext)
- No other index structures exist that would require cleanup
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any other potential index structures or node tracking mechanisms
# that might need cleanup during purge
# Look for tree/index related field declarations
rg -A 2 "private\s+var\s+tree|private\s+var\s+index"
# Look for other purge implementations that might need similar updates
ast-grep --pattern 'func purge($$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 7114
Tests/Unit/Document/DocumentTests.swift (1)
1059-1083: Verify coverage of GC behavior across different data types.
The test covers GC behavior for JSONText, but we should verify similar tests exist for other data types.
✅ Verification successful
GC behavior is comprehensively tested across data types and scenarios
The codebase already has extensive GC testing coverage:
- Unit tests in
GCTests.swiftcover GC for:- Text nodes with and without attributes
- Arrays and nested objects
- Tree nodes and container types
- Integration tests in
GCIntegrationTests.swiftverify GC behavior for:- Multi-client scenarios
- Container types
- Text types with complex operations
- Detached documents
The test under review complements the existing test suite by specifically focusing on node purging from indexes during GC, which wasn't explicitly covered in other tests.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other GC-related tests across the test suite
# Test: Search for GC-related test methods
rg -l 'test.*GC|garbageCollect' 'Tests/'
# Test: Search for JSONText-related tests
rg -l 'JSONText.*test|test.*JSONText' 'Tests/'
Length of output: 294
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of GC-related test files to understand the coverage
# Check GCTests.swift content
echo "=== GCTests.swift ==="
rg "func test" Tests/Unit/Document/GCTests.swift -A 5
# Check GCIntegrationTests.swift content
echo -e "\n=== GCIntegrationTests.swift ==="
rg "func test" Tests/Integration/GCIntegrationTests.swift -A 5
# Check CRDTRootTests.swift for GC-related tests
echo -e "\n=== CRDTRootTests.swift GC tests ==="
rg "func test.*GC" Tests/Unit/Document/CRDT/CRDTRootTests.swift -A 5
# Let's also check what data types are being tested with GC
echo -e "\n=== Data types in GC tests ==="
rg "JSONArray|JSONObject|JSONText|JSONCounter|JSONPrimitive" Tests/Unit/Document/GCTests.swift Tests/Integration/GCIntegrationTests.swift
Length of output: 10603
| * `getTreeByIndex` returns the tree by index for debugging. | ||
| */ | ||
| func getTreeByIndex() -> SplayTree<CRDTTextValue>? { | ||
| return self.text?.getTreeByIndex() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * `getTreeByID` returns the tree by ID for debugging. | ||
| */ | ||
| public func checkWeight() -> Bool { | ||
| self.text?.checkWeight() ?? false | ||
| func getTreeByID() -> LLRBTree<RGATreeSplitNodeID, RGATreeSplitNode<CRDTTextValue>>? { | ||
| return self.text?.getTreeByID() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Test coverage is adequate, but checkWeight method still exists
The new debugging methods getTreeByIndex and getTreeByID are well tested in DocumentTests.swift, particularly in garbage collection scenarios. However, I notice that:
getTreeByIDis used to verify tree size after various operations including garbage collectioncheckWeightmethod still exists inSplayTree.swiftand is being used in integration tests- Both debugging methods coexist, which contradicts the summary about
checkWeightbeing replaced
This suggests the PR summary might be incorrect about the removal of checkWeight.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify test coverage for the new debugging methods.
Let's ensure the new debugging methods are properly covered by tests, especially in garbage collection scenarios.
Let's examine the actual test implementations and the remaining checkWeight usage to make a more informed decision about the test coverage.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files that might use these new debugging methods
rg -l "getTreeByIndex|getTreeByID" --type swift "Tests/"
# Look for any remaining uses of the old checkWeight method
rg -l "checkWeight" --type swift
Length of output: 248
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual test coverage for these methods
rg "getTreeByIndex|getTreeByID" -B 2 -A 2 Tests/Integration/TextIntegrationTests.swift Tests/Unit/Document/DocumentTests.swift
# Check the remaining checkWeight implementation and its usage
rg "checkWeight" -B 2 -A 2 Tests/Integration/TextIntegrationTests.swift Sources/Util/SplayTree.swift
Length of output: 3295
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation:
Checklist:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
getTreeByIndexandgetTreeByIDin multiple classes.Bug Fixes
purgemethod to ensure proper node removal from all tracking structures.Tests
DocumentTests.TextIntegrationTests.