Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implement asynchronous support in ODataJsonLightDeltaWriter #2082

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 21, 2021
Merged

Implement asynchronous support in ODataJsonLightDeltaWriter #2082

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 21, 2021

Conversation

gathogojr
Copy link
Contributor

@gathogojr gathogojr commented May 10, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Issues

This pull request is in partial fulfilment of issue #2019.

Description

Implement asynchronous support in ODataJsonLightDeltaWriter

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

  • Test cases added
  • Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

@gathogojr gathogojr marked this pull request as draft May 10, 2021 06:38
@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/odatajsonlightdeltawriter-async branch from cf884b5 to dc25792 Compare May 21, 2021 05:02
@gathogojr gathogojr marked this pull request as ready for review May 21, 2021 05:05
@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/odatajsonlightdeltawriter-async branch from dc25792 to 7ee5683 Compare May 21, 2021 19:30
KenitoInc
KenitoInc reviewed May 25, 2021
View reviewed changes
src/Microsoft.OData.Core/JsonLight/ODataJsonLightWriter.cs Outdated
@@ -1597,7 +2636,6 @@ private void WriteDeltaLinkTarget(ODataDeltaLinkBase link)
/// Validates that the ODataResourceSet.InstanceAnnotations collection is empty for the given expanded resource set.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="resourceSet">The expanded resource set in question.</param>
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Performance", "CA1822:MarkMembersAsStatic", Justification = "An instance field is used in a debug assert.")]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we deleting the SuppressMessage?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because the Debug.Assert statements refer to this so I reasoned that the "MarkMembersAsStatic" warning would no longer valid.

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/ODataWriterCore.cs Outdated
/// <summary>
/// This method is called when an async stream is requested. It is a no-op.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>A task for method called when a stream is requested.</returns>
Task IODataStreamListener.StreamRequestedAsync()
{
return TaskUtils.GetTaskForSynchronousOperation(() => ((IODataStreamListener)this).StreamRequested());
return TaskUtils.CompletedTask;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can remove the IODataStreamListener.StreamRequested() if it's not needed anymore

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It'd not be safe to remove the method since this class implements IODataOutputInStreamErrorListener hence the requirement to implement all the methods including StreamRequested and StreamRequestedAsync. Its actually an extensibility hook, just like StreamDisposed and StreamDisposedAsync

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/ODataWriterCore.cs Outdated
@@ -2374,11 +2629,6 @@ private void EnterScope(WriterState newState, ODataItem item)
nestedResourceInfo.IsCollection = navigationProperty.Type.IsEntityCollectionType();
}

if (!nestedResourceInfo.IsCollection.HasValue)
{
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why was this code removed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@KenitoInc Because the block was repeated
image

@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/odatajsonlightdeltawriter-async branch 2 times, most recently from 17618c2 to da73cc9 Compare June 11, 2021 07:50
@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/odatajsonlightdeltawriter-async branch from da73cc9 to 2c8c632 Compare June 11, 2021 08:41
@gathogojr gathogojr added the Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Jun 11, 2021
marabooy
marabooy approved these changes Jun 15, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@marabooy marabooy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me; might need a test for OnInStreamErrorAsync

@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/odatajsonlightdeltawriter-async branch from 2c8c632 to 00f0c11 Compare June 18, 2021 06:21
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

This PR has 149 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Medium
Size       : +137 -12
Percentile : 49.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +137 -12

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@gathogojr gathogojr merged commit a7123f0 into OData:master Jun 21, 2021
@gathogojr gathogojr deleted the feature/odatajsonlightdeltawriter-async branch June 21, 2021 07:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@marabooy marabooy marabooy approved these changes

@KenitoInc KenitoInc KenitoInc approved these changes

@habbes habbes habbes approved these changes

@xuzhg xuzhg xuzhg approved these changes

@mikepizzo mikepizzo Awaiting requested review from mikepizzo

@ElizabethOkerio ElizabethOkerio Awaiting requested review from ElizabethOkerio

@Sreejithpin Sreejithpin Awaiting requested review from Sreejithpin

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Medium Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@gathogojr @marabooy @KenitoInc @habbes @xuzhg