fix: poison lock, use parking_lot#1651
Open
nikhilsinhaparseable wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
parking_lot in - Stream metadata - Stream writer - Streams struct
Contributor
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThis PR migrates lock primitives from ChangesLock Poisoning Removal via parking_lot Migration
Sequence DiagramNo sequence diagram generated; this PR is a lock API migration and error-handling cleanup without new multi-component sequential interactions. Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
src/parseable/streams.rs (1)
1924-1924:⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winFix test compilation: remove
.expect()fromparking_lot::RwLock::read()/write()guards
parking_lot::RwLock::read()andwrite()return guard types directly (e.g.,RwLockReadGuard), notResult, so calling.expect(...)on them is a type error. Update these test lines: 1924, 1937, 1960, 2007.🐛 Proposed fix
@@ -1921,7 +1921,7 @@ fn get_or_create_returns_existing_stream() { assert!(Arc::ptr_eq(&stream1, &stream2)); // Verify the map contains only one entry - let guard = streams.read().expect("Failed to acquire read lock"); + let guard = streams.read(); assert_eq!(guard.len(), 1); } @@ -1934,7 +1934,7 @@ fn create_and_return_new_stream_when_name_does_not_exist() { let ingestor_id = Some("new_ingestor".to_owned()); // Assert the stream doesn't exist already - let mut guard = streams.write().expect("Failed to acquire read lock"); + let mut guard = streams.write(); assert_eq!(guard.len(), 0); @@ -1957,7 +1957,7 @@ fn create_and_return_new_stream_when_name_does_not_exist() { assert_eq!(stream.ingestor_id, ingestor_id); // Assert that the stream is created - let guard = streams.read().expect("Failed to acquire read lock"); + let guard = streams.read(); assert_eq!(guard.len(), 1); @@ -2004,7 +2004,7 @@ fn get_or_create_stream_concurrently() { assert!(Arc::ptr_eq(&stream1, &stream2)); // Verify the map contains only one entry - let guard = streams.read().expect("Failed to acquire read lock"); + let guard = streams.read(); assert_eq!(guard.len(), 1); }🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@src/parseable/streams.rs` at line 1924, The tests call parking_lot::RwLock::read()/write() and then call .expect(...) even though those methods return guard types (RwLockReadGuard/RwLockWriteGuard) directly, causing a type error; remove the .expect(...) calls and assign the guard directly (e.g., let guard = streams.read(); and similarly for streams.write()) wherever you see streams.read().expect(...) or streams.write().expect(...), ensuring the rest of the test uses the guard value as before.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/parseable/streams.rs (1)
1323-1330: 💤 Low valueRemove commented-out dead code.
The commented line at line 1329 is leftover from previous refactoring and should be removed.
🧹 Suggested cleanup
pub fn delete(&self, stream_name: &str, tenant_id: &Option<String>) { let tenant_id = tenant_id.as_deref().unwrap_or(DEFAULT_TENANT); let mut guard = self.write(); if let Some(tenant_streams) = guard.get_mut(tenant_id) { tenant_streams.remove(stream_name); } - // self.write().remove(stream_name); }🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@src/parseable/streams.rs` around lines 1323 - 1330, In the delete method, remove the dead commented-out line "// self.write().remove(stream_name);"—keep the existing implementation that resolves tenant_id via DEFAULT_TENANT, acquires the write lock via self.write(), and removes the stream from tenant_streams; simply delete the leftover commented code to clean up the function.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Outside diff comments:
In `@src/parseable/streams.rs`:
- Line 1924: The tests call parking_lot::RwLock::read()/write() and then call
.expect(...) even though those methods return guard types
(RwLockReadGuard/RwLockWriteGuard) directly, causing a type error; remove the
.expect(...) calls and assign the guard directly (e.g., let guard =
streams.read(); and similarly for streams.write()) wherever you see
streams.read().expect(...) or streams.write().expect(...), ensuring the rest of
the test uses the guard value as before.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@src/parseable/streams.rs`:
- Around line 1323-1330: In the delete method, remove the dead commented-out
line "// self.write().remove(stream_name);"—keep the existing implementation
that resolves tenant_id via DEFAULT_TENANT, acquires the write lock via
self.write(), and removes the stream from tenant_streams; simply delete the
leftover commented code to clean up the function.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 45c5ecbe-ca5d-4790-9675-7ac1ef5ccdac
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
src/event/mod.rssrc/handlers/http/logstream.rssrc/handlers/http/modal/mod.rssrc/parseable/mod.rssrc/parseable/staging/mod.rssrc/parseable/streams.rssrc/prism/logstream/mod.rssrc/rbac/map.rs
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- src/parseable/staging/mod.rs
- src/rbac/map.rs
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
parking_lot in
Summary by CodeRabbit