fix master_run_id bug #1778
fix master_run_id bug #1778
Conversation
![cr-gpt[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/292659?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ int PikaConf::Load() { | |||
| if (slaveof_ != "") { | |||
| std::string master_run_id; | |||
| GetConfStr("master-run-id", &master_run_id); | |||
| if (master_run_id_.length() == configRunIDSize) { | |||
| if (master_run_id.length() == configRunIDSize) { | |||
| master_run_id_ = master_run_id; | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code patch you provided seems to contain a small change. It looks like there is an update in the if condition comparison for the length of master_run_id. Instead of master_run_id_.length(), it has been changed to master_run_id.length().
This change seems fine and shouldn't introduce any bugs or issues, assuming master_run_id_ is a string variable declared elsewhere in the code. By using master_run_id.length(), the code ensures that the length of master_run_id matches configRunIDSize before assigning its value to master_run_id_.
Overall, without additional context or code, it's difficult to provide further suggestions or improvements. However, based on this snippet alone, the change appears to be reasonable and does not raise any immediate concerns.
| @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ void PikaServer::Start() { | |||
| if ((master_ip == "127.0.0.1" || master_ip == host_) && master_port == port_) { | |||
| LOG(FATAL) << "you will slaveof yourself as the config file, please check"; | |||
| } else { | |||
| g_pika_server->set_master_run_id(g_pika_conf->master_run_id()); | |||
| SetMaster(master_ip, master_port); | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on the code patch you provided, here is a brief review:
-
The addition of
g_pika_server->set_master_run_id(g_pika_conf->master_run_id());sets the master run ID in the PikaServer object. Assuming this functionality is intended and implemented correctly, there doesn't appear to be any issues or bugs related to this specific line. -
It's important to note that analyzing the code patch alone may not provide a complete understanding of potential bugs or improvements. Contextual information about the surrounding code and the overall system architecture would be helpful for a more thorough review.
-
It's also worth mentioning that performing a code review requires more than just looking at individual lines. It involves considering the design, structure, error handling, performance optimizations, security concerns, and adherence to best practices. Without access to the complete codebase and further details, it's challenging to provide a comprehensive review.
To ensure a thorough code review, consider sharing the relevant portions of the code surrounding this patch, as well as any specific concerns or areas where you would like improvement suggestions.
fix: #1777