Page MenuHomePhabricator
Differential D4620

[lintstaged] Rename `keyServer` => `keyserver`
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by atul on Jul 25 2022, 7:50 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Mar 25, 3:57 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Mar 18, 4:47 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Mar 18, 2:00 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Mar 16, 10:34 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Mar 12, 4:14 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Mar 8, 6:42 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Mar 8, 6:42 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Mar 8, 6:42 AM
View All Files
Subscribers
• adrian
ashoat

Details

Reviewers
tomek
• jacek
• abosh
varun
Commits
rCOMMc95753960ef5: [lintstaged] Rename `keyServer` => `keyserver`
Summary

keyserver is one "word" so shouldn't be camelCase.

Test Plan

Made a change in /keyserver and made sure that the lintstaged steps ran as expected.

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Branch
master
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage

Event Timeline

atul created this revision.Jul 25 2022, 7:50 AM
Herald added subscribers: • adrian, ashoat. · View Herald TranscriptJul 25 2022, 7:50 AM
Harbormaster completed remote builds in B10809: Diff 14868.Jul 25 2022, 8:02 AM
atul requested review of this revision.Jul 25 2022, 8:02 AM
• abosh accepted this revision.Jul 25 2022, 8:47 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jul 25 2022, 8:47 AM
atul added a reviewer: varun. atul added 1 blocking reviewer(s): tomek.Jul 25 2022, 8:48 AM
This revision now requires review to proceed.Jul 25 2022, 8:48 AM
varun accepted this revision.Jul 25 2022, 8:56 AM

ah, pointed this out in another diff before i saw this one

atul removed 1 blocking reviewer(s): tomek.Jul 25 2022, 9:00 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jul 25 2022, 9:00 AM
atul updated this revision to Diff 14872.Jul 25 2022, 9:06 AM

rebase after addressing feedback

Harbormaster failed remote builds in B10813: Diff 14872!Jul 25 2022, 9:08 AM
Harbormaster completed remote builds in B10813: Diff 14872.Jul 25 2022, 9:56 AM
Closed by commit rCOMMc95753960ef5: [lintstaged] Rename `keyServer` => `keyserver` (authored by atul). · Explain WhyJul 25 2022, 10:02 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
atul added a commit: rCOMMc95753960ef5: [lintstaged] Rename `keyServer` => `keyserver`.
• abosh mentioned this in D4779: [lintstaged] Add cmake-lint to lintstagedrc.Aug 9 2022, 10:15 AM

Revision Contents
Changeset List

PathSize
4 lines

Diff 14868

View Options

.lintstagedrc.js

#include "DatabaseManagerBase.h" #include "DatabaseManagerBase.h"
#include "Item.h" #include "Item.h"
#include <aws/core/utils/Outcome.h> #include <aws/core/utils/Outcome.h>
#include <aws/dynamodb/model/BatchWriteItemRequest.h>
#include <aws/dynamodb/model/BatchWriteItemResult.h>
#include <aws/dynamodb/model/DeleteItemRequest.h> #include <aws/dynamodb/model/DeleteItemRequest.h>
#include <iostream> #include <iostream>
namespace comm { namespace comm {
namespace network { namespace network {
namespace database { namespace database {
Show All 23 Linesvoid DatabaseManagerBase::innerRemoveItem(const Item &item) {
const Aws::DynamoDB::Model::DeleteItemOutcome &outcome = const Aws::DynamoDB::Model::DeleteItemOutcome &outcome =
getDynamoDBClient()->DeleteItem(request); getDynamoDBClient()->DeleteItem(request);
if (!outcome.IsSuccess()) { if (!outcome.IsSuccess()) {
throw std::runtime_error(outcome.GetError().GetMessage()); throw std::runtime_error(outcome.GetError().GetMessage());
} }
} }
void DatabaseManagerBase::innerBatchWriteItem(
const std::string &tableName,
std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest> &writeRequests) {
// Split write requests to chunks by MAX_DYNAMODB_BATCH_ITEMS size and write
// them by batch
Aws::DynamoDB::Model::BatchWriteItemOutcome outcome;
std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest> writeRequestsChunk;
std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest>::iterator chunkPositionStart,
chunkPositionEnd;
for (size_t i = 0; i < writeRequests.size(); i += MAX_DYNAMODB_BATCH_ITEMS) {
chunkPositionStart = writeRequests.begin() + i;
chunkPositionEnd = writeRequests.begin() +
std::min(writeRequests.size(), i + MAX_DYNAMODB_BATCH_ITEMS);
writeRequestsChunk = std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest>(
chunkPositionStart, chunkPositionEnd);
tomekUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions
Aws::DynamoDB::Model::BatchWriteItemOutcome outcome;
- std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest> writeRequestsChunk;
- std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest>::iterator chunkPositionStart,
- chunkPositionEnd;
for (size_t i = 0; i < writeRequests.size(); i += MAX_DYNAMODB_BATCH_ITEMS) {
- chunkPositionStart = writeRequests.begin() + i;
- chunkPositionEnd = writeRequests.begin() +
+ auto chunkPositionStart = writeRequests.begin() + i;
+ auto chunkPositionEnd = writeRequests.begin() +
std::min(writeRequests.size(), i + MAX_DYNAMODB_BATCH_ITEMS);
- writeRequestsChunk = std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest>(
+ auto writeRequestsChunk = std::vector<Aws::DynamoDB::Model::WriteRequest>(
chunkPositionStart, chunkPositionEnd);
Aws::DynamoDB::Model::BatchWriteItemRequest writeBatchRequest;

You can simplify the code by avoiding reusing the variables and using auto

tomek: You can simplify the code by avoiding reusing the variables and using `auto`
maxAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

You can simplify the code by avoiding reusing the variables and using auto

I'm not a big fan of using auto where the type can be declared explicitly. Also, reusing the same variables is a part of loop optimization here (we don't create new ones inside the loop and reuse existing allocated memory for it).

max: > You can simplify the code by avoiding reusing the variables and using `auto` I'm not a big…
tomekUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

Also, reusing the same variables is a part of loop optimization here

Have you measured the performance difference? I don't think this type of premature optimization is beneficial - if the variable is used only locally, it is easier to reason about it: you don't have to think about its initial value and about possible usages after the loop. Also, having a variable defined inside a loop might enable some optimization (I'm guessing now). Currently, we only reuse the name - new variables are constructed in every iteration.

So overall, we have a lot more important performance issues and saving a couple of machine instructions wouldn't be noticeable. On the other hand, from readability point of view, this is a noticeable difference - you are certain that the variable is used only where it is valid.

tomek: > Also, reusing the same variables is a part of loop optimization here Have you measured the…
Aws::DynamoDB::Model::BatchWriteItemRequest writeBatchRequest;
writeBatchRequest.AddRequestItems(tableName, writeRequestsChunk);
outcome = getDynamoDBClient()->BatchWriteItem(writeBatchRequest);
if (!outcome.IsSuccess()) {
throw std::runtime_error(outcome.GetError().GetMessage());
}
tomekUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions
writeBatchRequest.AddRequestItems(tableName, writeRequestsChunk);
- outcome = getDynamoDBClient()->BatchWriteItem(writeBatchRequest);
+ auto outcome = getDynamoDBClient()->BatchWriteItem(writeBatchRequest);
if (!outcome.IsSuccess()) {
throw std::runtime_error(outcome.GetError().GetMessage());
}
}
}

outcome isn't used outside of this loop so we can declare it here

tomek: `outcome` isn't used outside of this loop so we can declare it here
maxAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

outcome isn't used outside of this loop so we can declare it here

Same as above. I'm sure we should not use auto, where the type can explicitly be used, and allocating and reusing this variable here, is an optimized way from my perspective.

max: > `outcome` isn't used outside of this loop so we can declare it here Same as above. I'm sure…
}
}
} // namespace database } // namespace database
} // namespace network } // namespace network
} // namespace comm } // namespace comm