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

Refactor es storage #1111

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 12, 2018
Merged

Conversation

pavolloffay
Copy link
Member

Resolves #1017, #1018 (comment)

  • use dependency link from dbmodel package
  • move service struct to dbmodel
  • rename maxLookBack to maxSpanAge

Signed-off-by: Pavol Loffay ploffay@redhat.com

Signed-off-by: Pavol Loffay <ploffay@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Pavol Loffay <ploffay@redhat.com>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 11, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #1111 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #1111   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage     100%    100%           
======================================
  Files         141     142    +1     
  Lines        6723    6743   +20     
======================================
+ Hits         6723    6743   +20
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
plugin/storage/es/dependencystore/storage.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
...in/storage/es/dependencystore/dbmodel/converter.go 100% <100%> (ø)
plugin/storage/es/spanstore/reader.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
plugin/storage/es/spanstore/writer.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
plugin/storage/es/factory.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
plugin/storage/es/spanstore/service_operation.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

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 e93c375...6be2186. Read the comment docs.

@pavolloffay
Copy link
Member Author

@jpkrohling would you like to have a look?

Copy link
Contributor

@jpkrohling jpkrohling left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, but I have a stupid question first: can't we have a single DependencyLink? Perhaps we could avoid all this conversion between DB and Model objects...

@pavolloffay
Copy link
Member Author

We have agreed to have a separate db model classes for each storage. It's easier to maintain. E.g. UI model can change without breaking the storage.

@pavolloffay pavolloffay merged commit 732ef79 into jaegertracing:master Oct 12, 2018
@ghost ghost removed the review label Oct 12, 2018
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.

2 participants