Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 29, 2022. It is now read-only.

Refactor pkg/config #806

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

johananl
Copy link
Member

This PR is rather cosmetic and focuses on better naming and readability.

The whitespace changes are for satisfying the linter.

Copy link
Member

@invidian invidian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

BTW @ipochi did awesome job refactoring pkg/config, which never got trough: https://github.com/kinvolk/lokomotive/pull/359/files#diff-091ace02b49a46f55f2586cfec89a160

pkg/config/config.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@johananl johananl force-pushed the johananl/refactor-config-parsing branch 3 times, most recently from 2fbe9f3 to 23b9065 Compare August 17, 2020 16:03
Copy link
Member

@invidian invidian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, when we do refactoring, we should also add tests to the code to ensure, that newly introduce code is easily testable.

@johananl johananl force-pushed the johananl/refactor-config-parsing branch 3 times, most recently from ca6d670 to 6438a2a Compare August 25, 2020 18:37
@johananl
Copy link
Member Author

Added some unit tests. They are non-exhaustive but they do demonstrate the testability of the new functions and provides a base for easily adding new tests.

@johananl
Copy link
Member Author

johananl commented Aug 25, 2020

  • TODO: Test lokocfgFiles()?
  • TODO: Test populateVars()?

@johananl johananl force-pushed the johananl/refactor-config-parsing branch from 6438a2a to 462baf9 Compare August 25, 2020 18:42
Copy link
Member

@invidian invidian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, I still struggle to see the reasoning behind changing the private method names in pkg/config. Perhaps putting a move of the functions inside the file to separate commit would be better, as it would highlight which changes has been performed exactly, maybe I comment code, which didn't change. I'd also split the changes into smaller commits, so then the extra reasoning can be added in the commit messages.

Changes to the exported API seem to indeed make sense.

pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config_internal_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config_internal_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@johananl johananl force-pushed the johananl/refactor-config-parsing branch 10 times, most recently from c8784b6 to 98a8aa4 Compare August 27, 2020 19:19
@johananl
Copy link
Member Author

@invidian I've handled most of your feedback. I still need to edit the commits though.

@invidian
Copy link
Member

@invidian I've handled most of your feedback. I still need to edit the commits though.

Thanks @johananl! I'll have a look.

Copy link
Member

@invidian invidian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks again for addressing my feedback @johananl, PR looks much better now. I commented on some small nits, but overall it looks nice.

This populateVars still bugs me and now I've noticed, that having RootConfig and Config structs in pkg/config also make little sense and it's related to populateVars. I'll have a look if I can come up with something to improve it, but I think it could be done in separate PR.

pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/config/config_internal_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@invidian invidian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@johananl I looked at the code around populateVars() and I think I understand now why it was confusing.

I would like to propose following changes on top of yours: 8c76770

They split ReadHCL further, so we can have better named code blocks (as mentioned in the comment) and changes populateVars() into "convert to Map" + "merge maps", which I think is more idiomatic approach than doing both things at the same time, as populateVars() do right now.

pkg/config/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 79 to 92
names, err := lokocfgFilenames(path)
if err != nil {
return nil, hcl.Diagnostics{
&hcl.Diagnostic{
Severity: hcl.DiagError,
Summary: err.Error(),
},
}
return nil, diag(fmt.Sprintf("getting lokocfg paths: %v", err))
}

hclParser := hclparse.NewParser()

var hclFiles []*hcl.File
for _, f := range lokocfgPaths {
hclFile, diags := hclParser.ParseHCLFile(f)
if len(diags) > 0 {
return nil, diags
}
hclFiles = append(hclFiles, hclFile)
files, err := readFiles(names)
if err != nil {
return nil, diag(err.Error())
}

configBody := hcl.MergeFiles(hclFiles)
body, diags := parseHCLFiles(files)
if diags.HasErrors() {
return nil, diags
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To avoid such lengthy functions and to name the blocks of code, I think we could put this three actions into separate function, but I'm not sure how to phrase the name of this function. However, after looking at this code (and code after it), it's clear to me, that this part reads the configuration files (and not values files) and returns them in a form of HCL body.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think ReadHCL() is so long at the moment, and breaking it down further would start to be on the "too much indirection" side. However, looking at the function again I'm not happy with the name ReadHCL since this function does more than just read HCL files. Frankly I think config.New() was the best option from the discussions so far. Do you have an alternative which doesn't include the word "load"? If not, I'd just go with config.New().

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think ReadHCL() is so long at the moment, and breaking it down further would start to be on the "too much indirection" side.

Given that this is a exported function, so we should be able to cover it fully with tests, currently has 9 different paths, which IMO is to high cognitive complexity. In 8c76770 I broke it down into nice smaller functions, so we have only 4 paths, which is very reasonable and easy to understand. This is also what tools like https://codeclimate.com/ encourages to do.

I think with the right naming you don't create the indirection, quite the opposite. You hide unrelated details, which makes things simpler and allows understanding only the paths of code which are interesting for the reader. With long function, reader must go trough all of it and understand all the statements to analyze the function.

However, looking at the function again I'm not happy with the name ReadHCL since this function does more than just read HCL files. Frankly I think config.New() was the best option from the discussions so far. Do you have an alternative which doesn't include the word "load"? If not, I'd just go with config.New().

FromHCLFiles() maybe? Or ReadHCLFiles() ? It gives you configuration from HCL files, so I think the name is appropriate. config.New() would be good IMO if we could define the loader type as an argument. Then the name shouldn't imply from where or how do we load the configuration. However, if we take HCL files paths as an argument, name should reflect that too in my opinion.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@johananl I'm currently looking into untangling and isolating code from cli/cmd package, as part of #312 and at the moment I find it confusing, that we call config.LoadConfig(), but it doesn't really load entire configuration. It's even hard to define of what exactly this code is doing. Maybe that will help a bit with naming and documentation here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is the definition of existing LoadConfig function I came up with:

// LoadConfig reads and parses top-level HCL configuration from given lokocfgPath and
// evaluates the variables from lokocfgVarsPath into HCL context, so it can be used
// for futher configuration parsing.

Which leads to the conclusion, that what is being returned is not the configuration (as "user configuration"), but rather a facility, which allows you to further read the configuration.

The lokomotive/pkg/config.Config struct does not ship proper information about itself. It's not "a Lokomotive configuration". It does not represent cluster + components configuration (which we didn't name yet).

@johananl johananl force-pushed the johananl/refactor-config-parsing branch from 98a8aa4 to 8205933 Compare September 3, 2020 11:38
The word "packet" in `cluster "packet" {}` is not the cluster name
but rather the platform on which the cluster is deployed. Therefore,
it makes more sense to name this label "Platform".
@johananl johananl force-pushed the johananl/refactor-config-parsing branch 5 times, most recently from e1a105c to ad5097b Compare September 3, 2020 16:23
- Make function names more concise and accurate.
- Reorder functions:
  - Put methods next to the associated type.
  - Put exported functions before unexported ones.
- Extract some logic from ReadHCL() into smaller functions.
- Simplify lokocfgFiles() and rename it to lokocfgFilenames().
lokocfgPaths, err := loadLokocfgPaths(lokocfgPath)
// ReadHCL reads all HCL files at path and one HCL values file at valuesPath, constructs a Config
// and returns a pointer to it.
func ReadHCL(path, valuesPath string) (*Config, hcl.Diagnostics) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still think this function is too long and should be splitted into smaller ones like I suggested in 8c76770

// populates each variable with the corresponding user-provided value or with a default. If a
// variable doesn't have a matching value and there is no default, an error is returned (as
// hcl.Diagnostics).
func populateVars(vars []variable, values map[string]cty.Value) (map[string]cty.Value, hcl.Diagnostics) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@johananl I looked at the code around populateVars() and I think I understand now why it was confusing.

I would like to propose following changes on top of yours: 8c76770

They split ReadHCL further, so we can have better named code blocks (as mentioned in the comment) and changes >populateVars() into "convert to Map" + "merge maps", which I think is more idiomatic approach than doing both things >at the same time, as populateVars() do right now.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants