TrueCloudLab
/
frostfs-node
18
1
Fork 20
Code Issues 88 Pull Requests 8 Actions Releases Activity

[#116] node: Improve shard/engine construction in tests #190

Merged
fyrchik merged 1 commits from aarifullin/frostfs-node:feature/116-engine_constructor into master 2023-04-05 14:36:41 +00:00
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files Changed 10
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 12:55:47 +00:00
Collaborator
  • Introduce testEngineWrapper that can be constructed with different options

Signed-off-by: Airat Arifullin a.arifullin@yadro.com

* Introduce testEngineWrapper that can be constructed with different options Signed-off-by: Airat Arifullin a.arifullin@yadro.com
aarifullin added the
frostfs-node
 label 2023-03-30 12:55:47 +00:00
aarifullin reviewed 2023-03-30 13:01:10 +00:00
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/error_test.go Outdated
@ -77,0 +56,4 @@
).
WithShardsNumFromOpts(t, 2, func(id int) []shard.Option {
storages, smallFileStorage, largeFileStorage := newTestStorages(filepath.Join(dir, strconv.Itoa(id)), errSmallSize)
testShards[id] = &testShard{
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 13:01:10 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

I would be glad to take any suggestion about testShards initialization. I tried to use intoduced WithShardsNumFromOpts but after rebase I was obliged to apply this hack with testShards.
It's still possible to invoke enginge.AddShard out of testNewEngine

I would be glad to take any suggestion about `testShards` initialization. I tried to use intoduced `WithShardsNumFromOpts` but after rebase I was obliged to apply this hack with `testShards`. It's still possible to invoke `enginge.AddShard` out of `testNewEngine`
aarifullin marked this conversation as resolved
aarifullin requested review from storage-core-committers 2023-03-30 13:02:01 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from storage-core-developers 2023-03-30 13:02:02 +00:00
fyrchik reviewed 2023-03-30 15:04:57 +00:00
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/control_test.go Outdated
@ -332,2 +322,2 @@
)
require.NoError(t, err)
te := testNewEngine(t).
WithShardsNumFromOptsOverDefault(t, num, func(id int) []shard.Option {
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 14:52:56 +00:00
Owner

Maybe just WithShardsAdditionalOpts(func(int) []shard.Option)?

Maybe just `WithShardsAdditionalOpts(func(int) []shard.Option)`?
👍 1
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -79,0 +79,4 @@
type testEngineWrapper struct {
engine *StorageEngine
dir string
shardIDs []*shard.ID
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 14:58:50 +00:00
Owner

We already have shards in the engine itself, duplicating them here can lead to unexpected behaviour when writing some concurrent tests in future. Can we return them from a method? Or does this field has some special meaning?

We already have `shards` in the engine itself, duplicating them here can lead to unexpected behaviour when writing some concurrent tests in future. Can we return them from a method? Or does this field has some special meaning?
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 15:53:09 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

This rather has supportive meaning. It is needed to keep shardIDs in the same order as they are added to engine. Also this allows to not iterate over engine shards and get shardIDs immediatly

This rather has supportive meaning. It is needed to keep shardIDs in the same order as they are added to engine. Also this allows to not iterate over engine shards and get shardIDs immediatly
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -79,0 +80,4 @@
engine *StorageEngine
dir string
shardIDs []*shard.ID
objects []*objectSDK.Object
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 14:59:15 +00:00
Owner

Feels unnecessary here, what value does it provide?

Feels unnecessary here, what value does it provide?
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 15:53:30 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

Removed it

Removed it
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -79,0 +84,4 @@
isRunning bool
}
func (te *testEngineWrapper) Engine() *StorageEngine {
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 15:04:55 +00:00
Owner

Not worth a method IMO, .engine is just as fine and Engine() makes me wondering how is it different from the RunEngine()

Not worth a method IMO, `.engine` is just as fine and `Engine()` makes me wondering how is it different from the `RunEngine()`
👍 1
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -93,2 +160,3 @@
}
return engine
func (te *testEngineWrapper) RunEngine(t testing.TB) *testEngineWrapper {
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 14:56:22 +00:00
Owner

I prefer to have a separate method for this, not using this as an option. It affects control flow and is different from creating something.

I prefer to have a separate method for this, not using this as an option. It affects control flow and is different from creating something.
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 15:57:10 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

I got your point but I wouldn't say that RunEngine is the option. It rather consecutively changes the eninge's state and that's why I implemented this with method chaining (without options pattern). I'll get it out

I got your point but I wouldn't say that `RunEngine` is the option. It rather consecutively changes the eninge's state and that's why I implemented this with method chaining (without options pattern). I'll get it out
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -95,0 +167,4 @@
return te
}
func (te *testEngineWrapper) WithShardObject(t testing.TB, generateObject func() *objectSDK.Object) *testEngineWrapper {
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 15:03:12 +00:00
Owner

It feels like a helper, not an option.
I think creating engine, then opening on it on a separate line, then putting objects to it is more readable.

It feels like a helper, not an option. I think creating engine, then opening on it on a separate line, then putting objects to it is more readable.
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 15:57:25 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

Removed

Removed
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -95,0 +169,4 @@
func (te *testEngineWrapper) WithShardObject(t testing.TB, generateObject func() *objectSDK.Object) *testEngineWrapper {
require.True(t, te.isRunning, "engine must be run up before putting objects in shards")
require.NotEmpty(t, te.shardIDs, "there must be at least one shard")
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 15:01:42 +00:00
Owner

Can we prevent this by construction? num must be greater than 0?

Can we prevent this by construction? `num must be greater than 0`?
aarifullin commented 2023-03-30 15:58:02 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

It is no longer actual

It is no longer actual
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/error_test.go Outdated
@ -74,3 +52,1 @@
smallFileStorage: smallFileStorage,
largeFileStorage: largeFileStorage,
}
te := testNewEngine(t).
fyrchik commented 2023-03-30 14:54:37 +00:00
Owner

Can testNewEngine just accept engine opts as a varargs?

Can `testNewEngine` just accept `engine` opts as a varargs?
👍 1
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
aarifullin force-pushed feature/116-engine_constructor from 0c38468fbb to 1b874919e5 2023-03-30 15:49:18 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin force-pushed feature/116-engine_constructor from 1b874919e5 to 2d2ecf52fe 2023-03-30 16:01:03 +00:00 Compare
dstepanov-yadro approved these changes 2023-03-31 07:11:46 +00:00
fyrchik reviewed 2023-03-31 07:35:24 +00:00
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/control_test.go Outdated
@ -338,4 +342,3 @@
require.Equal(t, num, len(e.shards))
require.Equal(t, num, len(e.shardPools))
require.NoError(t, e.Open())
fyrchik commented 2023-03-31 07:32:24 +00:00
Owner

Why move these lines?

Why move these lines?
aarifullin commented 2023-03-31 09:34:25 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

My fault. Removed them because of RunEngine(t), then removed this method and got these requires back

My fault. Removed them because of `RunEngine(t)`, then removed this method and got these requires back
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/control_test.go Outdated
@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ import (
"os"
"path/filepath"
"strconv"
"sync/atomic"
fyrchik commented 2023-03-31 07:30:35 +00:00
Owner

Please, rebase on master.

Please, rebase on master.
👍 1
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/engine_test.go Outdated
@ -95,0 +131,4 @@
func (te *testEngineWrapper) WithShardsNumAdditionalOpts(t testing.TB, num int, shardOpts func(id int) []shard.Option) *testEngineWrapper {
for i := 0; i < num; i++ {
defaultOpts := testDefaultShardOptions(t, i)
opts := append(shardOpts(i), defaultOpts...)
fyrchik commented 2023-03-31 07:33:01 +00:00
Owner

If we want our function to override defaults, defaultOpts should come first.

If we want our function to override defaults, `defaultOpts` should come first.
👍 1
fyrchik marked this conversation as resolved
fyrchik commented 2023-03-31 07:37:30 +00:00
Owner

Just a question, why have you decided to go with (e *engine) WithX(t) *engine instead of (e *engine) setX(t)?

Just a question, why have you decided to go with `(e *engine) WithX(t) *engine` instead of `(e *engine) setX(t)`?
aarifullin commented 2023-03-31 09:21:31 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

Just a question, why have you decided to go with (e *engine) WithX(t) *engine instead of (e *engine) setX(t)?

Fair point. I changed implementation few times: initially this wasn't method chaining but testNewEngine(t, With...). I'll fix it

> Just a question, why have you decided to go with `(e *engine) WithX(t) *engine` instead of `(e *engine) setX(t)`? Fair point. I changed implementation few times: initially this wasn't method chaining but `testNewEngine(t, With...)`. I'll fix it
aarifullin force-pushed feature/116-engine_constructor from 2d2ecf52fe to 2c8002e6ed 2023-03-31 09:33:40 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin requested review from dstepanov-yadro 2023-03-31 09:35:16 +00:00
dstepanov-yadro commented 2023-03-31 11:33:41 +00:00
Collaborator

Just my opinion. If something is required, it is better to create a New method, which explicitly pass the required dependencies. All WithXXX & SetXXX methods should be used only for parameters that have default values.

Just my opinion. If something is required, it is better to create a `New` method, which explicitly pass the required dependencies. All `WithXXX` & `SetXXX` methods should be used only for parameters that have default values.
dstepanov-yadro approved these changes 2023-03-31 11:33:49 +00:00
aarifullin commented 2023-04-03 11:12:02 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

All WithXXX & SetXXX methods should be used only for parameters that have default values.

That is still true for engine (testNewEngine(t, WithShardPoolSize(1))).
But I don't agree about SetXXX. User should (and AFAICS this was initally implied) to set shards explicitly - there are no cases where shards can be set implicitly as default

> All `WithXXX` & `SetXXX` methods should be used only for parameters that have default values. That is still true for engine (`testNewEngine(t, WithShardPoolSize(1))`). But I don't agree about `SetXXX`. User should (and AFAICS this was initally implied) to set shards explicitly - there are no cases where shards can be set implicitly as default
acid-ant approved these changes 2023-04-03 16:03:06 +00:00
fyrchik requested review from storage-core-committers 2023-04-03 16:24:34 +00:00
fyrchik requested review from carpawell 2023-04-03 16:24:39 +00:00
carpawell reviewed 2023-04-05 13:07:10 +00:00
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/head_test.go Outdated
@ -45,3 +45,3 @@
s2 := testNewShard(t, 2)
e := testNewEngineWithShards(t, s1, s2)
e := testNewEngine(t).SetInitializedShards(t, s1, s2).engine
carpawell commented 2023-04-05 13:03:31 +00:00
Collaborator

do we have a getter for engine (do not see it)? if no, exported setters look useless to me cause no external package needs testEngineWrapper but also no external package can get nested engine

do we have a getter for `engine` (do not see it)? if no, exported setters look useless to me cause no external package needs `testEngineWrapper` but also no external package can get nested `engine`
aarifullin commented 2023-04-05 13:33:29 +00:00
Poster
Collaborator

Good point. I've made setXXX methods internal

Good point. I've made `setXXX` methods internal
carpawell marked this conversation as resolved
aarifullin force-pushed feature/116-engine_constructor from 2c8002e6ed to 21f7aae37f 2023-04-05 13:32:44 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin requested review from acid-ant 2023-04-05 13:33:46 +00:00
carpawell approved these changes 2023-04-05 14:07:17 +00:00
aarifullin requested review from dstepanov-yadro 2023-04-05 14:07:50 +00:00
dstepanov-yadro approved these changes 2023-04-05 14:22:16 +00:00
fyrchik merged commit 6f7b6a8813 into master 2023-04-05 14:36:41 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
acid-ant
carpawell
dstepanov-yadro
Labels
Clear labels   
P0

Highest   
P1

High   
P2

Medium   
P3

Low   
badger

Badger DB related issues   
frostfs-adm
   
frostfs-cli
   
frostfs-ir
   
frostfs-lens
   
frostfs-node
   
good first issue

Good for newcomers   
triage
  
Infrastructure

Infrastructure, Automation, CI/CD or DevOps related stuff   
blocked

The issue or PR is blocked by something   
bug

Something is not working   
config

Configuration format update or breaking change   
discussion

Talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas   
documentation

Documentation related   
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists   
enhancement

New feature   
go

Language features adoption   
help wanted

Extra attention is needed   
internal
   
invalid

Something is wrong   
kludge

This is a kludge and we know it   
observability

Related to metrics, tracing and logs   
perfomance

Perfomance related   
question

More information is needed   
refactoring

Refactoring   
wontfix

This won't be fixed
No Label
P0
P1
P2
P3
badger
frostfs-adm
frostfs-cli
frostfs-ir
frostfs-lens
frostfs-node
good first issue
triage
Infrastructure
blocked
bug
config
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
go
help wanted
internal
invalid
kludge
observability
perfomance
question
refactoring
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node#190
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch "aarifullin/frostfs-node:feature/116-engine_constructor"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may exist for a short time before cleaning up, in most cases it CANNOT be undone. Continue?