Page MenuHomePhabricator

[services] Backup - Use Blob client in c++ - Implement create new backup
ClosedPublic

Authored by karol on Sep 1 2022, 4:09 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F2094179: D5017.id16245.diff
Mon, Jun 24, 5:05 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jun 22, 7:27 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jun 22, 3:24 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Jun 21, 3:53 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jun 20, 7:26 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jun 20, 1:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Jun 18, 11:59 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Jun 16, 2:15 AM

Details

Summary

Depends on D5016

Adding c++ implementation for using the blob client in the backup reactor for creating a new backup.

Test Plan

backup builds

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

jon requested changes to this revision.Sep 1 2022, 9:19 AM
jon added inline comments.
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
92 ↗(On Diff #16177)

I'm not a big fan str -> int -> bool conversion.

Also just not a big fan of assuming the shape of a string. Feel like this logic would better reside in a proto file and we can use the types from the protobuf files to avoid having to roll out error prone str parsing logic.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Sep 1 2022, 9:19 AM
tomek requested changes to this revision.Sep 5 2022, 5:50 AM
tomek added inline comments.
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
69 ↗(On Diff #16245)

This isn't used anywhere

75–79 ↗(On Diff #16245)

We should create some tasks that cover things mentioned in the comment

75–85 ↗(On Diff #16245)

This is confusing. We call put_client_blocking_read_cxx twice, and we ignore the result once. Could you explain (preferably in code comment) what's going on here?

108–112 ↗(On Diff #16245)

Why do we need to read after write?

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Sep 5 2022, 5:50 AM
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
69 ↗(On Diff #16245)

right

75–79 ↗(On Diff #16245)
75–85 ↗(On Diff #16245)

We read the response to unblock the reading queue. grpc in the bidi stream always yields a response even if it's empty. And it is in this case, that's why we ignore it, but we read so the queue's not blocked (this queue is a rust's channel with MPSC_CHANNEL_BUFFER_CAPACITY limit).

108–112 ↗(On Diff #16245)

Explained in the other comment

92 ↗(On Diff #16177)

int -> bool is pretty straightforward. The only thing that may be problematic is string -> int.

Also just not a big fan of assuming the shape of a string

I checked this function and for empty string, NaN, etc. it just returns false, so I think we're good.

Feel like this logic would better reside in a proto file and we can use the types from the protobuf files to avoid having to roll out error prone str parsing logic.

Sorry, but I don't understand, can you clarify what you mean?

Btw, not sure why I used string here, I'm going to try to use bool

jon requested changes to this revision.Sep 6 2022, 9:37 AM
jon added inline comments.
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
92 ↗(On Diff #16177)

Sorry, but I don't understand, can you clarify what you mean?

You can create a BidiReactorStatus enum within the protbuf files, and then all of the c++, rust, and other code bases can agree that the enum exists and agree about it's contents. Currently this is shared across C++ and rust, and I would like to avoid "stringly typed" intefaces as they are usually a source of issues later on.

For c++ and rust, this is nice because we would now get compile-time errors, instead of runtime errors. And for Rust specificly, this is nice because of exhaustive case matching, so we would be less prone to not handling a certain status.

This also delegates the responsibility of correctness to protobuf, instead of us having to do error-prone parsing in several locations.

I think a bool only makes sense on things like is_XXX. But for status, we may have many potential statuses and enum would be a better fit.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Sep 6 2022, 9:37 AM
karol added inline comments.
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
92 ↗(On Diff #16177)

I think you may not fully understand how things work here, at the same time I'm a bit confused by what you wrote, so I just predict what exactly you have in mind.

We do not have to handle passing the outcome status around, this is done automatically in the grpc.

I think a bool only makes sense on things like is_XXX

That's exactly what we have here - dataExists is the same as isDataPresent. I'm not sure what's the problem.

What status do you want to send? Status of what exactly?

tomek added inline comments.
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
74 ↗(On Diff #16354)

Do we really need to call this function here? Can't we just call one write after another?

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sep 7 2022, 11:13 AM
services/backup/src/Reactors/server/CreateNewBackupReactor.cpp
74 ↗(On Diff #16354)

For now, we have to. if we want to omit this, we should change the way functions are invoked.

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds.Sep 8 2022, 4:10 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.