[ISSUE #1646]♻️Refactor PeekMessageProcessor#process_request method signature🔥 #1647
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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
|
|
🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥 |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
AI review first
![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 and nitpick comments (2)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/peek_message_processor.rs (2)
26-32: Add documentation for the new method signatureThe method signature has been significantly changed with new parameters and return type. Please add documentation explaining:
- Purpose of each parameter
- Possible return values and their meanings
- Error conditions
Consider adding this documentation:
+ /// Process a peek message request + /// + /// # Parameters + /// * `channel` - The network channel for the request + /// * `ctx` - Connection handler context + /// * `request_code` - Type of request being processed + /// * `request` - The actual request command + /// + /// # Returns + /// * `Ok(Some(command))` - Successfully processed with response + /// * `Ok(None)` - Successfully processed with no response needed + /// * `Err(e)` - Processing error
33-33: Track implementation timelineThe
unimplemented!()macro will panic at runtime. Consider:
- Adding a TODO comment with tracking information
- Creating a GitHub issue to track the implementation
Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of this method?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/peek_message_processor.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor/peek_message_processor.rs (2)
17-18: LGTM: Imports align with signature changes
The new imports for RequestCode and Channel are correctly added to support the method signature changes.
26-32: Verify impact of breaking changes
The method signature has undergone significant changes that will affect existing callers.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1647 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 26.22% 26.22% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 463 463
Lines 61239 61241 +2
==========================================
Hits 16061 16061
- Misses 45178 45180 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
approved
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #1646
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
process_requestmethod to be publicly accessible, allowing for greater interaction with the message processing functionality.Bug Fixes