Skip to content
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

[ISSUE #1510]♻️Refactor GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader with derive marco RequestHeaderCodec #1518

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2024

Conversation

ButterflyEffect1991
Copy link
Contributor

@ButterflyEffect1991 ButterflyEffect1991 commented Dec 2, 2024

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1510

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader functionality with new required fields for cluster_name and broker_name.
    • Introduced a new test module to validate the creation of GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader instances.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Refactored trait implementations to improve the handling of request headers.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 2, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader struct within the rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/namesrv/broker_request.rs file. The struct now derives the RequestHeaderCodec trait, and two fields, cluster_name and broker_name, are marked as required. Additionally, previous trait implementations for the struct have been commented out, and a new test module has been added to validate the creation of struct instances with various inputs.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/namesrv/broker_request.rs - Updated GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader to derive RequestHeaderCodec.
- Added required fields: cluster_name and broker_name.
- Commented out constants BROKER_NAME and CLUSTER_NAME.
- Commented out CommandCustomHeader and FromMap implementations.
- Added a test module with three tests for the new method.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Refactor GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader with derive macro RequestHeaderCodec (#1510)

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

refactor, auto merge, ready to review, waiting-review, AI review first

Suggested reviewers

  • TeslaRustor
  • SpaceXCN

🐰 "In the code, we hop and play,
With structs and traits, we pave the way.
Required fields, a test or two,
Refactoring magic, all brand new!
Let's code together, swift and bright,
A rabbit's joy in every byte!" 🐇


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
🪧 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 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
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@ButterflyEffect1991 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥

@RocketmqRustBot RocketmqRustBot added good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed refactor♻️ refactor code labels Dec 2, 2024
@RocketmqRustBot RocketmqRustBot added this to the v0.4.0 milestone Dec 2, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 2, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.11765% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 24.75%. Comparing base (a720b7f) to head (6a1ca93).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ting/src/protocol/header/namesrv/broker_request.rs 94.11% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1518      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   24.70%   24.75%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         450      450              
  Lines       59385    59376       -9     
==========================================
+ Hits        14672    14698      +26     
+ Misses      44713    44678      -35     

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

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/namesrv/broker_request.rs (1)

315-341: Enhance test coverage

While the current tests are good, consider adding:

  1. Negative test cases to verify the #[required] attribute behavior
  2. Serialization/deserialization tests to verify RequestHeaderCodec functionality

Example test cases to add:

#[test]
#[should_panic(expected = "required")]
fn new_should_fail_with_null_values() {
    let _header = GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader {
        cluster_name: CheetahString::default(),
        broker_name: CheetahString::default(),
    };
}

#[test]
fn test_serialization_deserialization() {
    let header = GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader::new("testCluster", "testBroker");
    let serialized = serde_json::to_string(&header).unwrap();
    let deserialized: GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader = serde_json::from_str(&serialized).unwrap();
    assert_eq!(header.cluster_name, deserialized.cluster_name);
    assert_eq!(header.broker_name, deserialized.broker_name);
}
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a720b7f and 6a1ca93.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/namesrv/broker_request.rs (4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/header/namesrv/broker_request.rs (3)

21-21: LGTM: Import added for RequestHeaderCodec derive macro

The import is correctly placed and aligns with the PR objective of using the RequestHeaderCodec derive macro.


266-267: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Remove commented out code

Instead of keeping the commented code, it should be removed since:

  1. The functionality is now handled by the RequestHeaderCodec derive macro
  2. Git history preserves the old implementation if needed
  3. Commented code adds noise and maintenance overhead

Also, let's verify that the derive macro provides equivalent functionality:

Also applies to: 281-313

✅ Verification successful

Based on the search results, I can see multiple examples of RequestHeaderCodec usage across the codebase. The derive macro is consistently used alongside Serialize, Deserialize, and other common derives. Looking at the examples, particularly in files like send_message_request_header.rs and others, the macro handles the serialization/deserialization of camelCase fields, which is the same functionality that was previously handled by the commented constants.

Remove commented code blocks

The commented code can be safely removed since:

  1. The RequestHeaderCodec derive macro is proven to handle the field naming consistently across multiple similar request headers
  2. All examples show the macro working correctly with camelCase field serialization
  3. Git history will preserve the old implementation if needed for reference
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find other examples of RequestHeaderCodec usage to confirm behavior
rg -l "#\[derive\([^)]*RequestHeaderCodec[^)]*\)\]" | while read -r file; do
  echo "=== $file ==="
  rg -B 2 -A 10 "#\[derive\([^)]*RequestHeaderCodec[^)]*\)\]" "$file"
done

Length of output: 8528


256-262: Verify impact of making fields required

The addition of #[required] attributes to cluster_name and broker_name is a breaking change that enforces stricter validation. This could affect existing code that might be creating instances with default/empty values.

Let's check for potential impact:

✅ Verification successful

No breaking change impact from adding required attributes

The verification shows that the struct is used safely throughout the codebase:

  • The only direct instantiation is through the new() constructor method which always provides both required fields
  • No usage of default() was found in the codebase
  • The struct is primarily used in the namesrv processor where it's properly decoded from request headers that must contain these fields
  • Test cases demonstrate proper initialization with both empty and non-empty values

The addition of #[required] attributes aligns with the actual usage pattern in the codebase and formalizes the existing implicit contract that these fields must always be present.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for direct struct instantiations that might be affected
rg -l "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader\s*{\s*" | while read -r file; do
  echo "=== $file ==="
  rg -A 5 "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader\s*{\s*" "$file"
done

# Search for Default trait usage
rg -l "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader::default()" | while read -r file; do
  echo "=== $file ==="
  rg -A 2 "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader::default()" "$file"
done

Length of output: 295


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for direct struct instantiations that might be affected
rg -l "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader *{" | while read -r file; do
  echo "=== $file ==="
  rg -A 5 "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader *{" "$file"
done

# Search for Default trait usage
rg "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader::default" 

# Search for any usage of this struct
rg "GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader" -A 3

Length of output: 4979

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AI review first Ai review pr first approved PR has approved auto merge refactor♻️ refactor code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Refactor♻️]Refactor GetBrokerMemberGroupRequestHeader with derive marco RequestHeaderCodec
4 participants