Add document hard deletion functionality to housekeeping tasks. #718
Conversation
…emoved unnecessary comments
…emoved unnecessary comments
… and processing method related to hard deletion
…housekeeping structure.
…functions and test code to match the changed housekeeping structure
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #718 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 50.71% 50.45% -0.27%
==========================================
Files 70 70
Lines 10213 10424 +211
==========================================
+ Hits 5180 5259 +79
- Misses 4512 4636 +124
- Partials 521 529 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…ed affected functions, Default value: -24h
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for your contribution.
I have left some comments on naming convention and few more.
About Housekeeping Task Naming Convention
Since we now newly introducing document hard deletion, it would be better to rename existing housekeeping task "Deactivate Candidate" (deactivateCandidates) to "Client Deactivate Candidate" (ClientDeactivateCandidates) for more clarification and naming consistency with "Document Hard Deletion" (DocumentHardDeletion).
…ypos have been corrected for updates.
…m less than to less than or equal to
|
Thank you. All comments have been reflected, and some feature changes and comment typos have been corrected for the update. However, I think there is one thing that needs to be changed. Client: Returns without rollback when err occurs during operation Memdb: If err occurs during operation, rollback and return without committing Which of the two methods should you proceed with? |
|
In #932, we improved housekeeping so that multiple tasks can be added. It might be good to try document deletion again. |
|
@hackerwins Should we reopen this issue? |
|
@krapie sorry for forgetting. I will modify the work to fit the changed structure. |
If it's okay for @fourjae, It would be good to continue in this PR. 🙏 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (4)
cmd/yorkie/server.go (1)
213-216: Command-line flag description needs improvement.The description for the
documentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodflag should be more consistent with other descriptions.- "Document deletion over time after a single housekeeping run" + "Graceful period for document deletion after a single housekeeping run"server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (3)
Line range hint
218-218:
Follow the convention for function comments.It would be better to follow the convention of other test cases.
// RunDocumentHardDeletionTest runs the RunDocumentHardDeletion tests for the given db. func RunDocumentHardDeletionTest(t *testing.T, ...)
Line range hint
245-245:
Use a descriptive variable name.Consider renaming
GracePeriodtogracePeriodto follow Go naming conventions and improve readability.- GracePeriod := "0s" + gracePeriod := "0s"
Line range hint
258-260:
Ensure proper error handling for deletion count.The assertion should check if the number of deleted documents matches the expected count. Consider adding a more descriptive error message.
- assert.Equal(t, int(deletedDocumentsCount), len(candidates)) + assert.Equal(t, len(candidates), int(deletedDocumentsCount), "Mismatch in the number of deleted documents")
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (16)
- cmd/yorkie/server.go (3 hunks)
- server/backend/database/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/database_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/indexes.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (3 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go (9 hunks)
- server/config.go (2 hunks)
- server/config.sample.yml (1 hunks)
- server/rpc/server_test.go (1 hunks)
- test/helper/helper.go (2 hunks)
- test/sharding/server_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (48)
server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (4)
30-35: Ensure consistency in configuration field naming and validation.The new fields
IntervalDeactivateCandidates,IntervalDeleteDocuments,DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod,ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject, andDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectare consistent with the previous naming conventions. The validation logic should ensure these fields are correctly parsed and validated.
40-48: Validate interval fields with proper time units.The interval fields
IntervalDeactivateCandidates,IntervalDeleteDocuments, andDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodshould be validated to ensure they use proper time units like "m", "h", "s".
52-57: Validate candidate limit fields for non-negative values.The candidate limit fields
ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectandDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectshould be validated to ensure they are non-negative values.
60-61: Ensure project fetch size is non-negative.The
ProjectFetchSizefield should be validated to ensure it is a non-negative value.server/backend/database/memory/database_test.go (1)
107-109: Ensure comprehensive test coverage for document hard deletion.The new test case
DocumentHardDeletion testuses theRunDocumentHardDeletionTestfunction from thetestcasespackage to test the document hard deletion functionality. Ensure that this test case covers all relevant scenarios for document hard deletion.server/backend/housekeeping/config.go (4)
26-39: Ensure clarity and consistency in configuration field definitions.The new fields
IntervalDeactivateCandidates,IntervalDeleteDocuments,DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod,ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject, andDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectare clearly defined and consistent with the existing configuration structure.
47-61: Ensure proper validation of interval fields.The interval fields
IntervalDeactivateCandidates,IntervalDeleteDocuments, andDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodare validated usingtime.ParseDurationto ensure they use proper time units.
71-83: Ensure proper validation of candidate limit fields.The candidate limit fields
ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectandDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectare validated to ensure they are non-negative values.
Line range hint
84-89:
Ensure proper validation of project fetch size.The
ProjectFetchSizefield is validated to ensure it is a non-negative value.server/backend/database/mongo/client_test.go (1)
124-126: LGTM!The new test case for document hard deletion is correctly added and integrates well with the existing tests.
server/config.sample.yml (6)
33-34: LGTM!The new parameter
IntervalDeactivateCandidatesis correctly defined and provides necessary configuration for candidate deactivation.
36-37: LGTM!The new parameter
IntervalDeleteDocumentsis correctly defined and provides necessary configuration for document deletion.
39-40: LGTM!The new parameter
HousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodis correctly defined and provides necessary configuration for managing document retention.
42-43: LGTM!The new parameter
ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectis correctly defined and provides necessary configuration for limiting client deactivation candidates.
45-46: LGTM!The new parameter
DocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectis correctly defined and provides necessary configuration for limiting document hard deletion candidates.
48-49: LGTM!The new parameter
ProjectFetchSizeis correctly defined and provides necessary configuration for limiting the number of projects.server/backend/database/memory/indexes.go (1)
120-124: LGTM!The new field
project_idis correctly defined and enhances the schema by allowing for the storage and retrieval of data associated with project identifiers.test/sharding/server_test.go (1)
80-85: Ensure consistency in configuration parameter naming.The new configuration parameters are well-integrated. Verify that the naming conventions are consistent across the codebase.
Verification successful
Consistency in configuration parameter naming verified.
The new configuration parameters are consistently named across the codebase.
IntervalDeactivateCandidatesIntervalDeleteDocumentsDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistency in configuration parameter naming. # Test: Search for the new configuration parameters. Expect: Consistent naming conventions. rg --type go $'IntervalDeactivateCandidates|IntervalDeleteDocuments|DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod|ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject|DocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProject'Length of output: 9614
server/rpc/server_test.go (1)
85-90: Ensure consistency in configuration parameter naming.The new configuration parameters are well-integrated. Verify that the naming conventions are consistent across the codebase.
Verification successful
The naming conventions for the new configuration parameters are consistent across the codebase.
The parameters are well-integrated and consistently named in various files.
server/rpc/server_test.goserver/config.gotest/helper/helper.goserver/backend/housekeeping/config.gocmd/yorkie/server.goScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistency in configuration parameter naming. # Test: Search for the new configuration parameters. Expect: Consistent naming conventions. rg --type go $'IntervalDeactivateCandidates|IntervalDeleteDocuments|DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod|ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject|DocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProject'Length of output: 9614
server/config.go (2)
234-239: Ensure correct integration of new housekeeping constants.The new constants are correctly integrated into the
newConfigfunction. Verify that the integration is consistent across the codebase.
43-48: Ensure consistency in constant naming and usage.The new constants are well-defined. Verify that the naming conventions are consistent across the codebase.
Verification successful
The new constants are well-defined and consistently named in the files
server/config.goandcmd/yorkie/server.go. To ensure thorough verification, let's check if these constants are used in any other files within the codebase.
Ensure consistency in constant naming and usage.
The new constants are well-defined and consistently named across the codebase. They are used appropriately in the files
server/config.goandcmd/yorkie/server.go.
server/config.gocmd/yorkie/server.goScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistency in constant naming and usage. # Test: Search for the new constants. Expect: Consistent naming conventions. rg --type go $'DefaultHousekeepingIntervalDeactivateCandidates|DefaultHousekeepingIntervalDeleteDocuments|DefaultHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod|DefaultHousekeepingClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject|DefaultHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProject'Length of output: 1823
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistency in constant naming and usage across the entire codebase. # Test: Search for the new constants in all Go files. Expect: Consistent naming conventions. rg --type go 'DefaultHousekeepingIntervalDeactivateCandidates|DefaultHousekeepingIntervalDeleteDocuments|DefaultHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod|DefaultHousekeepingClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject|DefaultHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProject'Length of output: 1823
server/backend/database/database.go (3)
161-167: Method looks good.The
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectmethod is well-defined and its parameters are appropriate for the intended functionality.
169-173: Method looks good.The
DeleteDocumentmethod is well-defined and its parameters are appropriate for the intended functionality.
174-177: Method looks good.The
FindDocInfoByKeymethod is unchanged and its parameters are appropriate for the intended functionality.server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go (8)
35-36: Constants look good.The constants
deactivateCandidatesKeyanddocumentHardDeletionLockKeyare well-defined and appropriate for the locking mechanisms.
46-51: Fields look good.The new fields added to the
Housekeepingstruct are well-defined and appropriate for managing intervals and limits for housekeeping tasks.
Line range hint
80-108:
Constructor function looks good.The
Newconstructor function is well-defined and appropriately parses the additional configuration parameters.
117-118: Method looks good.The
Startmethod is well-defined and appropriately starts the new housekeeping tasks.
Line range hint
128-148:
Method looks good.The
AttachDeactivateCandidatesmethod is well-defined and appropriately handles the housekeeping loop for deactivating candidates.
150-170: Method looks good.The
AttachDocumentHardDeletionmethod is well-defined and appropriately handles the housekeeping loop for document hard deletion.
172-220: Method looks good.The
DeleteDocumentmethod is well-defined and appropriately handles the deletion of documents.
311-331: Method looks good.The
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesmethod is well-defined and appropriately handles finding document hard deletion candidates.cmd/yorkie/server.go (7)
41-45: Variables look good.The new variables for housekeeping intervals and limits are well-defined and appropriate for managing different housekeeping tasks.
74-76: Function looks good.The
newServerCmdfunction is well-defined and appropriately reflects the new variables for housekeeping intervals and limits.
201-211: Command-line flags look good.The new command-line flags for housekeeping intervals and limits are well-defined and appropriate for managing different housekeeping tasks.
219-221: Command-line flag looks good.The command-line flag for
ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectis well-defined and appropriately reflects the new variable name.
225-229: Command-line flag looks good.The command-line flag for
DocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectis well-defined and appropriate for managing document deletion limits.
229-231: Command-line flag looks good.The command-line flag for
ProjectFetchSizeis well-defined and appropriate for managing project fetch size.
201-231: Function looks good.The
initfunction is well-defined and appropriately includes the new command-line flags.test/helper/helper.go (3)
65-66: Ensure consistency in interval naming.The intervals for deactivating candidates and deleting documents are both set to
10 * gotime.Second. Verify that these intervals are appropriate and consistent with the rest of the system.
67-69: Check the new housekeeping limits.The new variables
HousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodandHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectare set to0 * gotime.Secondand10respectively. Ensure these values are appropriate for your use case.
216-221: Verify the updated housekeeping configuration.The configuration now includes the new intervals and limits for housekeeping tasks. Ensure these changes are correctly integrated and tested.
server/backend/database/memory/database.go (2)
622-657: Ensure correct handling of document fetching.The method
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectcorrectly fetches documents marked for hard deletion. Ensure the logic for checking theRemovedAttimestamp and the limit on candidates is appropriate.
704-726: Handle potential errors in document deletion.The method
DeleteDocumentcorrectly deletes documents and handles errors. Ensure that the transaction is appropriately committed or rolled back in case of errors.server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (3)
230-257: Handle potential errors in document deletion.The method
DeleteDocumentcorrectly deletes documents and handles errors. Ensure that the deletion operation is appropriately handled and any errors are logged or managed.
651-677: Ensure correct handling of document fetching.The method
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectcorrectly fetches documents marked for hard deletion. Ensure the logic for checking theRemovedAttimestamp and the limit on candidates is appropriate.
710-739: Ensure correct handling of client fetching.The method
FindDeactivateCandidatescorrectly fetches clients needing deactivation. Ensure the logic for cycling through projects and aggregating candidates is appropriate.server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1)
Line range hint
262-263:
Verify error handling for document not found.Ensure that the error handling correctly identifies the document not found scenario.
Verification successful
Error handling for document not found is correctly implemented.
The code properly identifies and handles the
ErrDocumentNotFoundscenario usingassert.ErrorIs(t, err, database.ErrDocumentNotFound).
- Instances found in
server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.goScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify error handling for document not found after deletion. # Test: Search for the error handling code. Expect: Proper handling of ErrDocumentNotFound. rg --type go -A 5 $'assert.ErrorIs(t, err, database.ErrDocumentNotFound)'Length of output: 74
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for any references to ErrDocumentNotFound in the testcases.go file to verify error handling. # Test: Search for the error handling code. Expect: Proper handling of ErrDocumentNotFound. rg 'ErrDocumentNotFound' server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.goLength of output: 236
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (3)
server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (3)
704-729: Add logging for better traceability.Adding logging can help trace the execution flow and identify issues more easily.
+ logging.DefaultLogger().Infof("Finding hard deletion candidates for project: %s", project.ID)
715-715: Rename variable to follow camelCase convention.The variable name
DocInfosshould bedocInfosto follow camelCase convention.- var DocInfos []*database.DocInfo + var docInfos []*database.DocInfo
763-791: Add logging for better traceability.Adding logging can help trace the execution flow and identify issues more easily.
+ logging.DefaultLogger().Infof("Finding deactivate candidates, lastProjectID: %s", lastProjectID)
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (17)
- cmd/yorkie/server.go (3 hunks)
- server/backend/database/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/database_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (3 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go (3 hunks)
- server/clients/housekeeping.go (4 hunks)
- server/config.go (2 hunks)
- server/rpc/server_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/server.go (1 hunks)
- test/bench/tree_editing_bench_test.go (1 hunks)
- test/helper/helper.go (2 hunks)
- test/sharding/server_test.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client_test.go
- test/bench/tree_editing_bench_test.go
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (8)
- cmd/yorkie/server.go
- server/backend/database/memory/database.go
- server/backend/database/memory/database_test.go
- server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go
- server/config.go
- server/rpc/server_test.go
- test/helper/helper.go
- test/sharding/server_test.go
Additional comments not posted (24)
server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (6)
30-35: LGTM!The new configuration fields are correctly initialized.
40-41: LGTM!The test case correctly checks for validation errors for invalid interval values.
44-45: LGTM!The test case correctly checks for validation errors for invalid interval values.
48-49: LGTM!The test case correctly checks for validation errors for invalid period values.
52-53: LGTM!The test case correctly checks for validation errors for invalid limit values.
56-57: LGTM!The test case correctly checks for validation errors for invalid limit values.
server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go (5)
32-33: LGTM!The
Housekeepingstruct correctly includes theConfigandschedulerfields.
51-65: LGTM!The
RegisterTaskmethod correctly sets up the scheduler for the housekeeping tasks.
Line range hint
67-75:
LGTM!The
RegisterTaskmethod correctly sets up the scheduler for document deletion tasks.
Line range hint
79-81:
LGTM!The
Startmethod correctly starts the scheduler for the housekeeping service.
Line range hint
83-91:
LGTM!The
Stopmethod correctly stops the scheduler and handles errors.server/backend/housekeeping/config.go (6)
28-41: LGTM!The new fields in the
Configstruct enhance the configurability of the housekeeping process.
49-53: LGTM!The
Validatemethod correctly validates the new configuration fields.
57-63: LGTM!The
Validatemethod correctly validates the interval for document deletion.
65-71: LGTM!The
Validatemethod correctly validates the period for document hard deletion.
72-78: LGTM!The
Validatemethod correctly validates the limit for client deactivation candidates.
79-85: LGTM!The
Validatemethod correctly validates the limit for document hard deletion candidates.server/clients/housekeeping.go (4)
39-39: Improved parameter naming.The parameter
candidatesLimitPerProjecthas been renamed toclientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectfor better clarity.
96-96: Improved parameter naming.The parameter
candidatesLimitPerProjecthas been renamed toclientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectfor better clarity.
182-204: LGTM!The
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesfunction is well-implemented with proper error handling and logging. The return values are consistent with the function's purpose.
125-180: LGTM! But verify the function usage in the codebase.The
DeleteDocumentfunction is well-implemented with proper locking and error handling. The logging provides useful information.However, ensure that the function is used correctly throughout the codebase.
server/server.go (1)
162-206: Enhanced housekeeping task registration.The function now registers two separate tasks for deactivating clients and deleting documents, improving control over task intervals. The logic and error handling are well-implemented.
However, ensure that the function is used correctly throughout the codebase.
Verification successful
Function usage verified.
The function
RegisterHousekeepingTasksis correctly used within the codebase, specifically in theserver/server.gofile. The implementation and usage are consistent and error handling is appropriately managed.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `RegisterHousekeepingTasks`. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Correct usage of the updated function. rg --type go -A 5 $'RegisterHousekeepingTasks'Length of output: 700
server/backend/database/database.go (2)
168-173: LGTM!The
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectmethod is well-implemented with proper error handling and logging. The return values are consistent with the method's purpose.
175-179: LGTM!The
DeleteDocumentmethod is well-implemented with proper error handling and logging. The return values are consistent with the method's purpose.
HousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod default hour 14h -> 336h (14day * 24h)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (5)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (3 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go (3 hunks)
- server/config.go (2 hunks)
- server/config.sample.yml (1 hunks)
- server/server.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client.go
- server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go
- server/config.sample.yml
- server/server.go
Additional comments not posted (3)
server/config.go (3)
43-45: New constants for housekeeping intervals and grace period.The new constants provide more granular control over housekeeping tasks. Ensure that these values align with the intended housekeeping policies.
46-47: Renamed constants for candidate limits per project.The constants have been renamed for clarity. Ensure that these changes are reflected in the rest of the codebase.
235-240: UpdatednewConfigfunction with new housekeeping constants.The function now references the new housekeeping constants. Ensure that these changes are correctly integrated and tested.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go
hackerwins
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fbc6098
to
7d65a57
Compare
|
@fourjae Sorry for the late review. I've been busy for couple of weeks. cc. @hackerwins |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (4)
server/config.go (1)
237-237: UseString()method for consistency.The
DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodfield is set directly to the corresponding constant value, which is inconsistent with the other fields that use theString()method. To maintain consistency and avoid potential issues, consider updating the code as follows:-DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod: DefaultHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod, +DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod: DefaultHousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod.String(),server/backend/database/database.go (1)
175-179: LGTM, but please update the comment.The
DeleteDocumentsmethod addition is approved. However, please update the comment at line 175 to match the method signature.-// DeleteDocuments deletes document of the given key +// DeleteDocuments deletes the documents specified by the given DocInfo pointersserver/backend/database/mongo/client.go (1)
230-263: Approve the implementation ofDeleteDocuments.The
DeleteDocumentsfunction is correctly implemented with proper error handling and validation.Improve the error messages.
Consider making the error messages more descriptive:
- When an invalid document ID is encountered, include the invalid ID in the error message.
- When the deletion fails, include the specific error details in the returned error.
server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1)
1414-1468: The code changes are approved with a suggestion to improve the test coverage.The new test function
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestis well-structured and covers the key aspects of the document hard deletion functionality. It follows the existing conventions in the file.To further improve the test coverage, consider adding the following scenarios:
- Test the case when there are no candidate documents for hard deletion.
- Test the case when the grace period is set to a positive value.
- Test the case when there are multiple candidate documents for hard deletion.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (16)
- cmd/yorkie/server.go (3 hunks)
- server/backend/database/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/indexes.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go (2 hunks)
- server/clients/housekeeping.go (4 hunks)
- server/config.go (2 hunks)
- server/config.sample.yml (1 hunks)
- server/rpc/server_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/server.go (2 hunks)
- test/helper/helper.go (2 hunks)
- test/sharding/server_test.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- server/backend/housekeeping/housekeeping.go
Additional comments not posted (45)
server/backend/housekeeping/config_test.go (6)
30-35: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
40-40: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
44-44: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
48-50: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
51-57: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
59-62: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
server/backend/housekeeping/config.go (4)
28-41: LGTM!The changes to the
Configstruct improve the configurability and granularity of the housekeeping service. The new fields allow for separate intervals for deactivating candidates and deleting documents, and provide limits on the number of candidates per project. The naming of the fields is clear and descriptive.
57-63: LGTM!The new check for the
DeleteDocumentsIntervalfield ensures that it is a valid duration, improving the robustness of the configuration validation.
65-82: LGTM!The new checks for the
DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriod,ClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProject, andDocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectfields ensure that they have valid values, improving the robustness of the configuration validation.
97-105: LGTM!The changes to the
ParseIntervalmethod enhance its flexibility and usability by accepting an interval as a parameter. This allows the method to be used with different interval values without modifying the struct. The updated error message provides more context about the interval being parsed.server/config.sample.yml (4)
33-34: LGTM!The change from
IntervaltoDeactivateCandidatesIntervalimproves clarity by using a more descriptive name for the parameter.
36-37: LGTM!The addition of the
DeleteDocumentsIntervalparameter introduces an interval for document deletion, which is a new housekeeping functionality.
39-40: LGTM!The addition of the
HousekeepingDocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodparameter specifies a grace period for hard deletion of documents, which is a new housekeeping functionality.
42-46: LGTM!The changes in this code segment are approved:
- The change from
CandidatesLimitPerProjecttoClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectimproves clarity by using a more descriptive name for the parameter.- The addition of the
DocumentHardDeletionCandidateLimitPerProjectparameter introduces a limit for document deletion candidates, which is a new housekeeping functionality.server/backend/database/memory/indexes.go (1)
139-147: LGTM!The new compound index
project_id_removed_atis a valuable addition to theschemavariable. It allows for efficient querying based on the combination ofProjectIDandRemovedAtfields, potentially improving performance for operations that involve filtering or sorting by both fields.The index is correctly defined using the
memdb.CompoundIndextype and the appropriate field types. The index name is clear and follows the naming convention of other indexes.The code changes are approved.
server/clients/housekeeping.go (7)
31-31: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
32-32: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
40-40: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
108-114: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
116-124: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
127-181: LGTM!The new
DeleteDocumentsfunction looks good. It follows the existing coding conventions and implements the document deletion functionality with proper locking and error handling.
Line range hint
184-219: LGTM!The new
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesfunction looks good. It follows the existing coding conventions and implements the logic for finding document deletion candidates across multiple projects.server/server.go (4)
97-100: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
101-103: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
164-187: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
189-214: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
test/sharding/server_test.go (1)
81-85: LGTM!The changes to the housekeeping configuration parameters in the
TestMainfunction look good. The new parameters provide more granular control over document management and candidate deactivation processes, which aligns with the AI-generated summary.The changes are in a test file and do not directly impact the production code. The new parameters are initialized with values from the
helperpackage, which likely contains predefined constants for testing.Overall, the changes enhance the functionality of the housekeeping configuration and do not introduce any issues or inconsistencies.
server/config.go (4)
43-47: LGTM!The introduction of the new constants enhances the clarity and readability of the housekeeping configuration. The constants provide more specific and descriptive names, making it easier to understand their purpose in the context of document deletion and candidate deactivation processes.
48-48: Please clarify the purpose and usage ofDefaultHousekeepingProjectFetchSize.The constant
DefaultHousekeepingProjectFetchSizeseems to be a standalone addition and its purpose is not immediately clear from the context. Could you please provide more information on how this constant is used in the housekeeping process and why it was introduced?
235-240: LGTM!The updates to the
Housekeepingconfiguration in thenewConfigfunction ensure that the logic for housekeeping operations is now aligned with the new constants introduced earlier. This change enhances the consistency and clarity of the housekeeping configuration.
43-48: Overall, the code changes look good!The introduction of the new constants and the updates to the housekeeping configuration enhance the clarity, consistency, and maintainability of the codebase. The changes provide more specific and descriptive names for the housekeeping intervals and limits, making it easier to understand their purpose in the context of document deletion and candidate deactivation processes.
Apart from the minor nitpick regarding the consistency of setting the
DocumentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodfield, the code changes are well-structured and contribute positively to the overall quality of the codebase.Also applies to: 235-240
server/rpc/server_test.go (1)
86-91: LGTM!The changes to the housekeeping configuration parameters are well-aligned with the PR objectives and significantly enhance the functionality of the housekeeping process. The new parameters provide more granular control over the management of candidate documents and their deletion processes, likely improving the efficiency of data management.
The code changes are approved.
server/backend/database/database.go (2)
23-23: LGTM!The import statement is approved.
167-173: LGTM!The
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectmethod addition is approved.cmd/yorkie/server.go (6)
44-44: Previous review comment addressed.The variable name
documentHardDeletionGracefulPeriodfollows the naming convention suggested in the previous review comment.
74-76: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
200-211: LGTM!The code changes are approved. The flag names and descriptions follow the naming convention suggested in the previous review comment.
213-216: LGTM!The code changes are approved. The flag name and description follow the naming convention suggested in the previous review comment.
219-223: LGTM!The code changes are approved. The flag name and description follow the naming convention suggested in the previous review comment.
224-229: LGTM!The code changes are approved. The flag name and description follow the naming convention suggested in the previous review comment.
test/helper/helper.go (2)
65-73: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
242-246: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
server/backend/database/memory/database.go (2)
676-712: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
758-780: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (1)
710-736: LGTM!The
FindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectfunction is correctly implemented and follows the requirements. It effectively identifies the documents eligible for hard deletion based on the provided project and grace period.
|
@krapie Edited to reflect all comments. Additionally, the grace time setting for deleted documents has been declared as 2 weeks (14d*24h). How many hours would be good? |
|
@fourjae I think 2 weeks is good for now. |
|
@hackerwins Sudden wonder, is this task should be in housekeeping? not background? |
|
@hackerwins Could you mind reviewing this PR instead of me please? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
server/backend/database/memory/database.go (1)
758-780: LGTM, but consider improving the error handling.The code changes are approved. However, consider wrapping the error returned from
txn.Deletewith more context usingfmt.Errorfto provide better error messages.For example, you can modify the error handling as follows:
-return 0, fmt.Errorf("fetch hard deletion candidates: %w", err) +return 0, fmt.Errorf("delete document %s: %w", candidate.ID, err)server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (1)
230-263: LGTM, but consider handling the case when fewer documents are deleted.The code changes are approved. However, consider handling the case when
DeleteManydeletes fewer documents than expected, which could happen if some documents were deleted concurrently by another process. You can comparelen(candidates)withdeletedResult.DeletedCountand log a warning if they don't match.server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1)
1596-1650: Comprehensive test implementation! A few suggestions:The test thoroughly covers the document hard deletion flow, including setup, configuration, candidate identification, deletion, and verification steps. Well done!
A few suggestions to consider:
- The
fetchSizevariable is set but not used in theFindDocumentHardDeletionCandidatesPerProjectcall. Consider removing if unused.- To make the test more robust, validate the
candidatesslice before deletion to ensure it contains the expected document(s).- Consider adding a negative test case to validate behavior when no candidates are found for deletion.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- server/backend/database/memory/database.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/memory/database_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (2 hunks)
- server/backend/database/mongo/client_test.go (1 hunks)
- server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.go (1 hunks)
- test/complex/main_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (5)
server/backend/database/memory/database_test.go (1)
115-117: LGTM, but verify the implementation ofRunDocumentHardDeletionTest.The code changes are approved. The new test case follows the existing pattern and enhances the test suite by including functionality to verify the hard deletion of documents.
However, ensure that the
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestfunction is correctly implemented and thoroughly tested to confirm that it behaves as expected. Run the following script to verify the function implementation:Verification successful
"""
"""
Verification Successful:
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestis correctly implemented.The
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestfunction is defined and thoroughly tests the hard deletion of documents. It is correctly integrated into the test suite, ensuring that the functionality is verified. No further action is required.
- Location of
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestimplementation:server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.gostarting at line 1597.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of `RunDocumentHardDeletionTest`. # Test: Search for the function definition. # Expect: The function is defined and has a non-empty body. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func RunDocumentHardDeletionTest($_, $_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 4916
server/backend/database/mongo/client_test.go (1)
131-134: LGTM, but verify the implementation ofRunDocumentHardDeletionTest.The code changes are approved. The addition of the new test case for "DocumentHardDeletion test" enhances the test suite by including functionality to verify the hard deletion of documents, which is a critical aspect of database management. The test case follows the existing pattern and is correctly implemented.
However, please ensure that the
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestfunction, which is assumed to contain the actual test logic for document hard deletion, is properly implemented. You can use the following script to verify its implementation:Verification successful
"""
"""
The
RunDocumentHardDeletionTestfunction is correctly implemented.The function is defined in
server/backend/database/testcases/testcases.goand thoroughly tests the hard deletion of documents by simulating the necessary operations and using assertions to verify the expected outcomes. The test case is well-structured and follows standard Go testing practices. No further action is needed.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of the `RunDocumentHardDeletionTest` function. # Test: Search for the function definition. # Expect: The function should be defined and contain the test logic for document hard deletion. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func RunDocumentHardDeletionTest($_, $_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 4916
test/complex/main_test.go (1)
91-96: LGTM!The code changes are approved. The addition of new configuration parameters enhances the housekeeping functionality by providing more granular control over intervals and limits related to candidate deactivation and document deletion. The renaming of
CandidatesLimitPerProjecttoClientDeactivationCandidateLimitPerProjectimproves clarity. The changes are consistent with the existing code structure and align with the PR objectives.server/backend/database/memory/database.go (1)
676-712: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
server/backend/database/mongo/client.go (1)
710-736: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution. Overall looks good. I left a few comments.
A. Collections under 'documents' need to be deleted as well
Yorkie Documents are stored across multiple collections:
- documents: Stores document metadata (creation time, number of changes, etc.)
- changes: Stores document changes (similar to oplog in databases)
- snapshots: Stores document snapshots (similar to snapshots in databases)
- syncedseqs: Records how far clients have synced
Please refer to this: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_kidjCtk=/?moveToWidget=3458764569836960605&cot=14
B. Exception cases need to be handled
In Yorkie system, document replicas exist not only on the server but also on clients. We need to consider the following scenarios:
- When a client requests synchronization and the document has been soft-deleted on the server (check removedAt in the documents collection), the local replica should be marked as deleted.
- But if the documents collection has been physically hard-deleted by housekeeping processes, there's no way to determine if the document was deleted.
We need to think about how to handle this second case.
For more details on document removal, please check this design document:
https://github.com/yorkie-team/yorkie/blob/main/design/document-removal.md
What this PR does / why we need it:
A housekeeping task was added to automatically physically delete documents at certain intervals.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes # #706
Although it does not directly solve the above issue, I think it is somewhat related to the need to improve the housekeeping structure.
I think the housekeeping structure could be improved if necessary.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation:
Checklist:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation