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.

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

Get lockmode by the storemode #1193

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jun 13, 2019
Merged

Get lockmode by the storemode #1193

merged 12 commits into from
Jun 13, 2019

Conversation

zhangthen
Copy link
Contributor

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jun 12, 2019

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (develop@442e048). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 8.33%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             develop    #1193   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage           ?   43.41%           
  Complexity         ?     1428           
==========================================
  Files              ?      250           
  Lines              ?    10217           
  Branches           ?     1331           
==========================================
  Hits               ?     4436           
  Misses             ?     5199           
  Partials           ?      582
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...java/io/seata/server/lock/memory/MemoryLocker.java 85.86% <ø> (ø) 20 <0> (?)
...ava/io/seata/core/constants/ConfigurationKeys.java 0% <ø> (ø) 0 <0> (?)
...n/java/io/seata/server/lock/db/DataBaseLocker.java 30.43% <0%> (ø) 5 <0> (?)
...ore/src/main/java/io/seata/core/lock/LockMode.java 0% <0%> (ø) 0 <0> (?)
.../main/java/io/seata/server/lock/LockerFactory.java 40.9% <11.11%> (ø) 3 <0> (?)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 442e048...3a0902b. Read the comment docs.

memory{
## store lock in memory of server
}
mode = ""
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we remove lock.mode from conf

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we remove lock.mode from conf

I'll use “lock.mode” in some other cases.

@@ -82,11 +82,7 @@ store {
}
lock {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think should delete the lock node, which is strongly associated with the store. As for the table name, we should use our default table name just like undolog, and do not need to allow user settings.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think should delete the lock node, which is strongly associated with the store. As for the table name, we should use our default table name just like undolog, and do not need to allow user settings.

I will store the row locks in the user's database, beside the undo_log table, and need a lock node to configure this switcher.

Copy link
Member

@xingfudeshi xingfudeshi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@leizhiyuan leizhiyuan self-requested a review June 13, 2019 04:14
Copy link
Contributor

@leizhiyuan leizhiyuan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants