[ISSUE #2062] Adding #[inline] for QueueOffsetOperator methods #2063
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request enhances the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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
|
rocketmq-rust-bot
requested review from
rocketmq-rust-bot,
SpaceXCN and
TeslaRustor
|
🔊@nakul-py 🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉！ 💡CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥！ Note 🚨The code review suggestions from CodeRabbit are to be used as a reference only, and the PR submitter can decide whether to make changes based on their own judgment. Ultimately, the project management personnel will conduct the final code review💥. |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
auto merge
ready to review
waiting-review
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2063 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 28.37% 28.37%
=======================================
Files 488 488
Lines 69250 69250
=======================================
Hits 19651 19651
Misses 49599 49599 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
rocketmq-store/src/queue/queue_offset_operator.rs (3)
47-52: Slight overhead from consumingCheetahString
The parameter is taken by value instead of by reference, causing ownership transfer even if you only need a read. You might consider accepting a&CheetahStringif you only need to read or insert it.- pub fn get_queue_offset(&self, topic_queue_key: CheetahString) -> i64 { + pub fn get_queue_offset(&self, topic_queue_key: &CheetahString) -> i64 {
Line range hint
121-136: Locking each table separately
Note that removing from three tables locks each independently. If atomic removal is needed across tables, consider a single lock or ordering. Current approach is simpler and likely enough for many use cases.
Line range hint
143-153: Filtering out keys that do not contain"lmq"
Implementation correctly inserts only keys containing"lmq". Consider clarifying whether partial matches or case sensitivity matter.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-store/src/queue/queue_offset_operator.rs(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (13)
rocketmq-store/src/queue/queue_offset_operator.rs (13)
31-34: InlinedDefaultimplementation looks fine
Marking the default constructor with#[inline]is reasonable, as it delegates tonew()and suggests inlining to reduce call overhead.
Line range hint
38-46: Constructors with separateArc<Mutex<>>fields
Using separate tables for different queue categories provides flexibility. This approach is clear and straightforward.
54-59: Avoiding repeated locking
Getting the offset with a single lock is fine. Implementation here is succinct and correct.
61-67: Handling negative or zero increases
The method adds the message count to the offset unconditionally. Confirm whether negative or zero increments are valid use cases.
69-74: Ownership usage
update_queue_offsetclones the key. That is fine if the caller is responsible for the original key.
76-81: Consistent approach for batch offsets
Implementation mirrors the logic for topic queue offsets, ensuring uniform usage across all queue types.
83-89: Parallel approach for batch offsets
Storing and incrementing the batch queue offset with a single lock is consistent and clear.
91-96: LMQ offset usage
Follows the same pattern as the other offsets. Code is consistent and straightforward.
98-103: Next LMQ offset retrieval
ReturningOption<i64>is appropriate here, allowing the caller to handle an absent key gracefully.
105-111: Ensure valid message_num
Like other increment methods, ensure negative increments are treated as intended.
113-119:current_queue_offsetreturns zero if missing
This defaulting to zero behavior is predictable. Good approach for simplifying caller logic.
138-141: Replacing the topic queue table
Atomic replacement via the lock is concise. No issues here.
Line range hint
154-158: Consistent atomic table replacement
Same pattern for the batch table as for topic and LMQ. Straightforward design.
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Add #[inline] for QueueOffsetOperator methods
Summary by CodeRabbit