Add ctx in DN txn and tables

[WitcherTheWhite]

What type of PR is this?

• API-change
• BUG
• Improvement
• Documentation
• Feature
• Test and CI
• Code Refactoring

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

issue #

What this PR does / why we need it:

Add ctx in DN txn and tables

[matrix-meow]

@WitcherTheWhite Thanks for your contributions!

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/catalog/catalog_test.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the Start and Commit functions in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/catalog/catalog_test.go file. The purpose of this change is to add context to the DN (DataNode) transaction and tables.

There are no issues associated with this pull request, and it is categorized as an "Improvement."

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not introduce any new functionality. However, there are a few issues that need addressing:

1. The pull request does not provide a clear explanation of why the context parameter is being added. It would be helpful to include a brief explanation of why this change is necessary and what benefits it provides.

2. The pull request does not include any tests to ensure that the new functionality is working as expected. It would be beneficial to include tests that cover the new functionality to ensure that it is working correctly.

3. The pull request modifies the pkg/vm/engine/tae/catalog/catalog_test.go file, which is a test file. It is not clear if this change is intended to be part of the production codebase or if it is only for testing purposes. If this change is intended to be part of the production codebase, it would be helpful to include a brief explanation of how this change will impact the production code.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the following suggestions can be considered:

1. Provide a clear explanation of why the context parameter is being added and what benefits it provides. This will help reviewers understand the purpose of the change and ensure that it is necessary.

2. Include tests that cover the new functionality to ensure that it is working correctly. This will help ensure that the new functionality is working as expected and will catch any issues that may arise.

3. Consider adding a brief explanation of how this change will impact the production code. This will help reviewers understand the scope of the change and ensure that it is not introducing any unintended consequences.

Overall, the changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not introduce any new functionality. However, addressing the issues mentioned above and including tests to cover the new functionality will help ensure that the changes are working as expected and will not introduce any unintended consequences.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/base_test.go:
The pull request is titled "Add ctx in DN txn and tables" and the body only contains a checklist of PR types and a statement that the PR adds context to DN transactions and tables. The changes made in the pull request are in the file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/base_test.go. The changes involve adding a context parameter to the Commit and Rollback methods of transactions in several functions.

There are no major problems with the pull request. However, there are a few minor issues that could be addressed:

1. The pull request title is not very descriptive. It could be improved by adding more information about what the pull request does.

2. The body of the pull request is not very informative. It would be helpful to provide more details about why the context parameter is being added and what benefits it provides.

3. The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not require much explanation. However, it would be helpful to add comments to the code explaining why the context parameter is being added and how it is used.

4. The pull request only adds the context parameter to the Commit and Rollback methods of transactions. It may be beneficial to also add the context parameter to other methods that interact with the database, such as Append and Truncate.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the author could consider adding the context parameter to other methods that interact with the database. Additionally, the author could provide more detailed comments explaining why the context parameter is being added and how it is used.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/catalog_test.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the commit and rollback functions in the catalog_test.go file. The context parameter is used to control the lifecycle of the transaction. The changes look good, but there are some issues that need to be addressed:

1. The pull request title is not descriptive enough. It should provide more information about the changes made in the pull request.

2. The pull request body is empty. It should provide a brief summary of the changes made in the pull request and why they are necessary.

3. The pull request does not reference any issue. It is recommended to reference an issue that the pull request is related to.

4. The changes made in the pull request are good, but it would be better to add some comments to the code to explain the reason for adding the context parameter.

5. It is recommended to add some tests to ensure that the changes made in the pull request do not break any existing functionality.

6. It is recommended to follow a consistent coding style throughout the codebase.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/db.go:
The pull request adds context to DN txn and tables. However, the title and body of the pull request are not descriptive enough. The title should be more specific and should include the reason for adding context to DN txn and tables. The body of the pull request should also provide more information about the changes made and why they are necessary.

In terms of the changes made, the pull request modifies the CommitTxn and RollbackTxn functions in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/db.go file to include context. However, it is not clear why context is necessary in these functions. The pull request should provide more information about why context is necessary and how it will be used.

Additionally, the pull request does not include any tests to ensure that the changes made do not introduce any new bugs or issues. It is important to include tests to ensure that the code changes are working as expected and do not break any existing functionality.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the pull request should include more information about the performance impact of adding context to DN txn and tables. If adding context has a significant impact on performance, the pull request should provide suggestions for how to mitigate this impact.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/hidden_test.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the Commit() function in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/hidden_test.go file. The purpose of this change is to add context to the DN txn and tables.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the PR type is not specified.

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not introduce any new functionality. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed:

1. The pull request does not provide any context or explanation for why this change is necessary. It would be helpful to include a brief explanation of why adding context to the DN txn and tables is important.

2. The pull request does not specify the type of PR. It would be helpful to specify the type of PR, such as "Improvement" or "Code Refactoring".

3. The pull request does not reference any issues. It would be helpful to reference any relevant issues that this pull request addresses.

4. The changes made in the pull request are simple and straightforward, but there is no explanation of how these changes optimize the codebase. It would be helpful to include an explanation of how these changes optimize the codebase.

To address these issues, the pull request should be updated to include a brief explanation of why adding context to the DN txn and tables is important, specify the type of PR, reference any relevant issues, and include an explanation of how these changes optimize the codebase.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/open.go:
The pull request title "Add ctx in DN txn and tables" is not very descriptive and does not provide much information about the changes made. It would be better to have a more detailed and specific title that clearly explains the purpose of the pull request.

The body of the pull request is also not very informative. It only includes a checklist of PR types and a statement that "ctx" has been added to "DN txn and tables". It would be helpful to provide more context about why this change is necessary and what problem it solves.

In terms of the changes made, the pull request modifies the "Open" function in the "open.go" file. Specifically, it adds the "opts.Ctx" parameter to the "db.TxnMgr.Start()" function call. This change appears to be related to adding context to the database transactions and tables.

One potential issue with this change is that it may introduce new dependencies or requirements for using the database. It would be important to ensure that any necessary documentation or guidance is provided to users to avoid confusion or errors.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, it may be helpful to provide more detailed comments or documentation within the code itself. This can help other developers understand the purpose and usage of the added "ctx" parameter. Additionally, it may be useful to include more information in the pull request body to provide context and justification for the change.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/replay.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the Prepare and Commit functions in the replay.go file. However, the pull request title and body are not informative enough. The title should describe the changes made in the pull request, and the body should provide more context about why these changes are necessary.

Additionally, the pull request template has not been filled out correctly. The PR type should be selected from the list, and the issue number should be provided if applicable.

As for the changes made in the replay.go file, it is unclear why the context parameter is needed. The pull request should provide more information about why this change is necessary and what problem it solves.

Finally, the pull request should include tests to ensure that the changes made do not introduce any new bugs or issues.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/scheduler_test.go:
The title of the pull request is "Add ctx in DN txn and tables". The body of the pull request is empty, except for a checklist of PR types and a reference to an issue number. The changes made in the pull request are to add a context parameter to the Commit method calls in the scheduler_test.go file.

There are no major issues with the pull request, but there are a few suggestions for improvement:

1. The body of the pull request should provide more context about why the change is necessary. This will help reviewers understand the purpose of the change and whether it is necessary.

2. The pull request should include a description of the issue that it fixes. This will help reviewers understand the context of the change and why it is necessary.

3. The pull request should include a description of the changes made and how they improve the codebase. This will help reviewers understand the impact of the change and whether it is necessary.

4. The changes made in the pull request could be optimized by using a default context instead of requiring a context parameter to be passed in. This would simplify the code and make it easier to use.

Overall, the changes made in the pull request are minor and do not introduce any major issues. However, the pull request could be improved by providing more context and a description of the changes made.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/task.go:
The pull request titled "Add ctx in DN txn and tables" aims to add context to DN (Data Node) transactions and tables. The changes made in the pull request are in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/task.go file. The Execute function in the ScheduledTxnTask struct now accepts a context parameter, which is then passed to the Rollback and Commit functions of the transaction.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the type of PR is not specified.

The changes made in the pull request seem to be fine. However, there are a few things that need to be addressed:

1. The title of the pull request is not descriptive enough. It should clearly state what the pull request does and what problem it solves. A better title could be "Add context parameter to DN transactions and tables for better error handling."

2. The body of the pull request is incomplete. It should provide more information about the changes made, why they were made, and how they will benefit the codebase. Additionally, the type of PR should be specified.

3. The changes made in the pull request are minimal, and there is no explanation of why they were made. It would be helpful to provide more context about why adding context to DN transactions and tables is necessary.

4. The panic statement in the Execute function is not a good practice. Instead of panicking, the error should be returned to the caller.

5. It would be helpful to add some unit tests to ensure that the changes made in the pull request are working as expected.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the following suggestions can be considered:

1. Provide more information in the pull request body about why the changes were made and how they will benefit the codebase.

2. Add some unit tests to ensure that the changes made in the pull request are working as expected.

3. Remove the panic statement in the Execute function and return the error to the caller instead.

4. Consider adding more error handling to the Execute function to handle any errors that may occur during the transaction.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/txn_test.go:
The pull request titled "Add ctx in DN txn and tables" aims to add context to DN txn and tables. The changes made in the pull request are in the file pkg/vm/engine/tae/db/txn_test.go. The changes include adding context to the following functions: GetByFilter, UpdateByFilter, Commit, and Rollback.

However, the pull request lacks a clear explanation of why the changes are necessary. The body of the pull request only states that context is being added to DN txn and tables. It does not explain why context is being added or what benefits it provides.

Additionally, the pull request does not provide any information about the issue(s) it fixes.

One suggestion to improve the pull request is to provide a clear explanation of why context is being

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/data/block.go:
The pull request adds the ctx parameter to some methods in the Block interface in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/data/block.go file.

There are no issues mentioned that this PR fixes, and the body of the PR is not very informative.

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and seem to be reasonable. However, it would be better if the PR provided more context on why these changes are necessary.

One suggestion for improvement would be to provide more information in the PR body, such as why the ctx parameter is being added and how it will be used. Additionally, it would be helpful to mention any potential issues or edge cases that could arise from these changes.

Overall, the changes seem reasonable, but the PR could benefit from more context and information.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/handle/block.go:
The pull request title and body are concise and clear. However, the body does not provide any context or explanation of why adding ctx in DN txn and tables is necessary.

The changes made in the pull request are in the file pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/handle/block.go. The changes involve adding ctx context.Context as the first parameter to the following functions: GetByFilter, GetColumnDataByNames, and GetColumnDataByIds.

There are no major problems with the changes made in the pull request. However, it would be helpful to have a brief explanation of why adding ctx context.Context is necessary.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, it would be helpful to add a comment in the code explaining the purpose of ctx context.Context and how it is used in the functions. Additionally, it would be helpful to update the pull request body to provide more context and explanation of why adding ctx context.Context is necessary.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/handle/relation.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several methods in the Relation interface in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/handle/relation.go file. However, the pull request lacks a clear explanation of why this change is necessary and what problem it solves. Additionally, the pull request does not specify which issue it fixes.

One suggestion to improve this pull request is to provide a clear explanation of why the context parameter is necessary and how it will improve the codebase. Additionally, the pull request should specify which issue it fixes.

Regarding the changes made, the pull request adds a context parameter to the following methods:

• GetByFilter
• GetValueByFilter
• UpdateByFilter
• DeleteByFilter
• AddBlksWithMetaLoc

The changes seem reasonable, but it is unclear why the context parameter is necessary for each method. The pull request should provide a clear explanation of why the context parameter is necessary for each method and how it will improve the codebase.

Overall, the pull request needs more information and context to be properly reviewed.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/iface/txnif/types.go:
This pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the types.go file. The purpose of this change is not clear from the title or the body of the pull request. The body of the pull request does not provide any information about why this change is necessary or what problem it solves.

There are no issues referenced in the pull request, so it is unclear what problem this change is addressing.

The changes themselves seem reasonable, as adding a context parameter to functions that perform I/O operations is a good practice. However, it is not clear why these specific functions were chosen for modification.

To improve this pull request, the author should provide more information about why this change is necessary and what problem it solves. The author should also reference any relevant issues that this change addresses. Additionally, the author should consider providing more context about why these specific functions were chosen for modification.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/logtail/handle.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the NewTableLogtailRespBuilder function and the visitBlkData function. The context parameter is then passed to the CollectDeleteInRange function in the visitBlkData function.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the body of the pull request is not informative.

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not introduce any new functionality.

However, the pull request lacks context and explanation. It is unclear why the context parameter was added, and what problem it solves. The pull request should provide more information on why this change is necessary and how it will improve the codebase.

Additionally, the pull request could benefit from more descriptive commit messages that explain the changes made in each commit.

Overall, the changes made in the pull request seem reasonable, but the pull request could benefit from more context and explanation.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/logtail/logtailer.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the NewTableLogtailRespBuilder function call in the logtailer.go file. The purpose of this change is not clear from the title or the body of the pull request. The pull request does not fix any issue, and it is not clear why this change is necessary. The body of the pull request is incomplete, and it does not provide enough information to understand the purpose of the change.

To improve the pull request, the title should be more descriptive and should explain the purpose of the change. The body of the pull request should provide more information about why this change is necessary and how it improves the codebase. Additionally, the pull request should reference the issue it fixes, if any.

As for the changes made in the pull request, they seem reasonable and do not introduce any obvious issues. However, it is not clear if the context parameter is necessary for the NewTableLogtailRespBuilder function, and it would be helpful to have more information about why it was added.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/logtail/txn_handle.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the visitDelete function in the txn_handle.go file. The purpose of this change is not clear from the title or body of the pull request. The pull request template has not been filled out, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of the change. The changes themselves seem reasonable, but it is unclear why they are necessary.

Suggestions:

• The pull request title and body should be more descriptive and provide context for the changes made.
• The pull request template should be filled out to provide more information about the purpose of the change.
• The changes themselves seem reasonable, but it would be helpful to have more information about why they are necessary.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/rpc/handle.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the handle.go file. The context parameter is used to manage the lifecycle of the request and handle timeouts and cancellations.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and it is unclear why the changes are necessary. The body of the pull request is also incomplete, as it does not explain the purpose of the changes or provide any context.

The changes themselves seem reasonable, as they add context parameters to functions that perform transactions and database operations. However, it is unclear why these changes were made and whether they are necessary.

To improve the pull request, the author should provide more context and explain why the changes are necessary. They should also mention any issues that the changes address and provide clear descriptions of the changes made. Additionally, they should consider optimizing the changes by providing more detailed commit messages and breaking up the changes into smaller, more manageable chunks.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/rpc/inspect.go:
The pull request adds context.Context to DN txn and tables. However, the pull request description is incomplete and does not provide enough information about the changes made. The body of the pull request only contains a checklist for the type of PR, which is not relevant to the changes made. The changes made in the pull request are in the file pkg/vm/engine/tae/rpc/inspect.go. The changes include adding context.Context to the runAddC, runDropC, runRenameT, and initCommand functions.

There are no major issues with the changes made in the pull request. However, there are a few suggestions for optimization.

Firstly, the pull request description should be more informative and provide a clear explanation of the changes made. Secondly, the initCommand function should be modified to accept context.Context as a parameter instead of inspectContext. This will make the function more modular and easier to test. Finally, the runAddC, runDropC, and runRenameT functions should be modified to return the error instead of panicking. This will make the functions more robust and easier to use in other parts of the codebase.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/rpc/rpc_test.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several Commit() and GetColumnDataByNames() functions in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/rpc/rpc_test.go file. The pull request does not provide any explanation for why this change is necessary.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the type of PR is not specified.

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward, and there are no obvious problems with them. However, it would be helpful to have more context on why these changes were made and how they will improve the codebase.

One suggestion to optimize the changes made in the pull request is to provide more detailed explanations in the pull request body. This will help reviewers understand the purpose of the changes and provide more informed feedback. Additionally, it would be helpful to include any relevant links or documentation to provide more context for the changes.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/samples/sample1/main.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the commit function in the DN transaction and tables. The pull request does not provide any explanation for why this change is necessary. The pull request also includes a checklist for the type of pull request, but none of the options are selected. The changes made in the pull request are in the main.go file, where the context parameter is added to the commit function in two places.

One problem with this pull request is that it lacks sufficient context. The pull request does not explain why the context parameter is necessary or how it will improve the codebase. The pull request should provide more information about the changes made and their impact on the codebase.

Another issue with this pull request is that the checklist for the type of pull request is not completed. The pull request should indicate the type of change being made, such as an API change, bug fix, or improvement.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the pull request should provide more information about the impact of adding the context parameter to the commit function. The pull request should also complete the checklist for the type of pull request being made.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/samples/sample2/main.go:
The pull request adds context to DN txn and tables. However, the title and body of the pull request do not provide enough information about the changes made. The body of the pull request has a checklist for the type of PR, but none of the options are checked. It would be helpful to provide more context on why this change is necessary and what issues it fixes.

In the changes made to the file pkg/vm/engine/tae/samples/sample2/main.go, the context.Background() has been added to the Commit() function in three places. This is a good change as it adds context to the transaction and tables, which can help with cancellation and timeouts. However, it would be better to provide a more detailed explanation of why this change is necessary and how it improves the codebase. Additionally, it would be helpful to add comments to the code to explain the changes made.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/tables/ablk.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to two functions in the ablk.go file. The context parameter is used to pass the context to the functions. The changes look good, but the pull request lacks important information that would help reviewers understand the purpose of the changes.

Here are some suggestions to improve the pull request:

• Provide a clear description of why the changes are necessary. This will help reviewers understand the purpose of the changes and whether they are necessary.
• Remove the checklist for the type of PR. It is not necessary and does not add any value to the pull request.
• Provide a clear description of the issue(s) that the pull request fixes. This will help reviewers understand the context of the changes and whether they are addressing a known issue.
• Consider providing more information about the changes made to the functions. For example, what was the reason for adding the context parameter? How does it affect the behavior of the functions? This information will help reviewers understand the impact of the changes and whether they are correct.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/tables/base.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to two functions in the base.go file of the pkg/vm/engine/tae/tables package. The Foreach function and CollectDeleteInRange function now have a context.Context parameter.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the body of the pull request does not provide any explanation for why this change is needed.

There are no issues with the changes made in the pull request. However, it would be helpful to have more information about why the context parameter was added to these functions. It would also be useful to have more information about any potential optimizations that could be made to the code.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/tables/blk.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the GetColumnDataByIds function in the blk.go file. However, the pull request title and body are not descriptive enough. The title should clearly state the purpose of the pull request, and the body should provide a detailed explanation of the changes made and why they are necessary.

Additionally, the pull request does not include any tests or documentation, which should be added to ensure that the changes are properly tested and documented.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the author could consider refactoring the code to reduce duplication and improve readability. They could also consider adding more context to the function parameters to make it easier to understand their purpose.

Overall, the pull request needs more work before it can be merged. The author should provide a more detailed explanation of the changes made, add tests and documentation, and consider refactoring the code to improve its quality.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/tables/jobs/compactblk.go:
The pull request titled "Add ctx in DN txn and tables" aims to add a context parameter to the CollectDeleteInRange function in the compactblk.go file. The purpose of this change is not clearly explained in the pull request body. The pull request template is not filled out, which makes it difficult to understand the type of change being made.

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward. The CollectDeleteInRange function is being modified to accept a context parameter. The changes look good, and there are no issues with the code.

However, the pull request body needs to be updated to provide more context about the change. The pull request template should be filled out to indicate the type of change being made. Additionally, the body should explain why this change is necessary and how it will benefit the codebase.

Overall, the changes made in the pull request are good, but the pull request body needs to be updated to provide more context.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/tables/pnode.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the Foreach function in the persistedNode struct in the pnode.go file. The purpose of this change is to enable the use of context in DN transactions and tables.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the PR type is not specified.

The changes made in the pull request seem reasonable, but there are some issues that need addressing:

1. The PR type should be specified to help reviewers understand the purpose of the changes.

2. The pull request should mention the reason for adding context to the Foreach function and how it will improve the codebase.

3. The pull request should include test cases to ensure that the changes do not break any existing functionality.

4. The variable name "v" in the Foreach function is not descriptive and should be changed to a more meaningful name.

5. The pull request should include a description of any potential performance impacts of adding context to the Foreach function and how they can be mitigated.

6. The pull request should follow the project's coding standards and formatting guidelines.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the following suggestions can be considered:

1. Use a default context if none is provided to the Foreach function.

2. Use a context with a timeout to prevent the Foreach function from blocking indefinitely.

3. Use a context with a cancellation function to allow the Foreach function to be canceled if needed.

4. Use a context with a deadline to ensure that the Foreach function completes within a specified time frame.

5. Use a context with a value to pass additional information to the Foreach function.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnbase/handle.go:
The pull request adds a context.Context parameter to several functions in the handle.go file.

There are a few issues with this pull request:

1. The title and body of the pull request are not descriptive enough. The title only states that "ctx" is added to DN txn and tables, but it does not provide any context or explanation for why this change is being made. The body of the pull request is also incomplete, as it only contains a checklist of PR types and does not provide any additional information or context.

2. The changes made in the pull request are incomplete. While the context.Context parameter has been added to several functions, the functions themselves do not contain any code that makes use of the context. This means that the changes are not fully implemented and may not be functional.

3. There is no explanation for why the context.Context parameter is being added to these functions. Without this context, it is difficult to understand the purpose of the change and whether it is necessary.

To address these issues, the pull request should be updated with a more descriptive title and body that explains the purpose of the change and why it is necessary. Additionally, the changes should be fully implemented with code that makes use of the context.Context parameter. Finally, the pull request should include an explanation for why the context.Context parameter is being added to these functions.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnbase/impl.go:
The pull request adds ctx parameter to the rollback1PC(), commit1PC(), and rollback2PC() functions in the impl.go file. The changes are made to pass context to the OnOpTxn() function. However, the pull request title and body are not descriptive enough to explain the changes made.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the PR type is not selected. It is recommended to select the appropriate PR type and mention the related issues in the pull request.

The changes made in the pull request are fine, but there is no explanation of why these changes are necessary. It is recommended to provide a clear explanation of why these changes are needed and how they will improve the codebase.

Additionally, it is suggested to add some unit tests to ensure that the changes made are working as expected.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnbase/store.go:
This pull request adds a context parameter to several methods in the NoopTxnStore struct in store.go. The changes seem to be focused on adding context to the methods that didn't have it before.

However, there are a few issues with this pull request that need to be addressed:

1. The title and body of the pull request are not very descriptive. The title only mentions adding ctx to DN txn and tables, which is not very specific. The body of the pull request is also not very helpful in explaining what the changes are for and why they are needed. It would be better if the title and body were more descriptive and provided more context.

2. There is no explanation for why context is being added to these methods. It would be helpful if the pull request included an explanation for why context is needed in these methods and how it will be used.

3. It's not clear if all of the methods in NoopTxnStore need a context parameter. Some of the methods, such as Close() and GetLSN(), don't seem like they would need context. It would be better if the pull request explained why each method needs a context parameter.

4. There are no tests included in the pull request to ensure that the changes work as expected. It would be helpful if the pull request included tests to ensure that the changes don't introduce any bugs or regressions.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the following suggestions could be considered:

1. Provide more context in the pull request title and body to explain why context is being added to these methods.

2. Only add context parameters to methods that actually need them. It's not clear if all of the methods in NoopTxnStore need a context parameter, so it would be better to only add them where they are actually needed.

3. Include tests in the pull request to ensure that the changes work as expected and don't introduce any bugs or regressions.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnbase/txn.go:
The pull request adds a context.Context parameter to several functions in the txn package. The changes are made to the txn.go file, where the Prepare, Rollback, Commit, CommitInRecovery, PrePrepare, and WaitPrepared functions are modified to include a context.Context parameter.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the body is brief, only stating that the ctx parameter is added to the functions.

The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not seem to introduce any new issues. However, there are a few areas where the changes could be optimized:

1. The pull request could benefit from a more detailed description of the changes made and why they were necessary. This would help reviewers understand the purpose of the changes and ensure that they are appropriate.

2. The pull request could also benefit from more detailed documentation of the functions modified. This would help developers who are not familiar with the codebase understand the purpose and behavior of the functions.

3. The pull request could be improved by adding unit tests to ensure that the modified functions behave as expected with the new context.Context parameter.

4. Finally, the pull request could be improved by adding a more detailed commit message that explains the changes made and why they were necessary. This would help future developers understand the purpose of the changes and ensure that they are appropriate.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnbase/txnmgr.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the TxnManager struct. Specifically, the heartbeat, newHeartbeatOpTxn, onPrePrepare, dequeuePrepared, and Start functions have been modified to accept a context parameter.

However, the pull request lacks a clear explanation of why this change is necessary. It is unclear what problem this change is trying to solve or what benefits it provides. The pull request also does not reference any issues that this change addresses.

One suggestion to improve this pull request is to provide a clear explanation of why the context parameter is necessary. This could include a description of the problem that this change is trying to solve or the benefits that it provides. Additionally, referencing any issues that this change addresses would help provide context for the change.

Another suggestion is to provide more detailed commit messages for each change. The current commit messages are not very descriptive and do not provide much information about the changes made. Providing more detailed commit messages would make it easier for future developers to understand the changes made and why they were made.

Finally, it may be worth considering if there are any other optimizations that could be made to the codebase in addition to adding the context parameter. For example, there may be opportunities to simplify or streamline the code in these functions.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/anode.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the GetColumnDataById function in the anode.go file. However, the title and body of the pull request are not very descriptive and do not provide enough information about the changes made.

One issue with the pull request is that it does not explain why the context parameter is needed. It would be helpful to provide some context on why this change is necessary and how it will improve the codebase.

Additionally, the pull request does not mention any tests that were run to ensure that the changes did not introduce any new bugs or issues. It would be good to include information on any tests that were run and their results.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the author could consider adding more descriptive titles and bodies to future pull requests. They could also include more information on the changes made and why they are necessary. Finally, they could run more tests to ensure that the changes do not introduce any new issues.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/basenode.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the GetColumnDataById and LoadPersistedColumnData functions in the basenode.go file. However, the pull request title and body do not provide enough information about why this change is necessary.

One problem with this pull request is that it lacks a clear explanation of why the context parameter is needed. The pull request should provide a detailed explanation of why the context parameter is necessary and how it will improve the codebase.

Another issue is that the pull request does not include any tests to ensure that the changes do not introduce any new bugs or regressions. The pull request should include tests that cover the changes made to the basenode.go file.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the author should consider adding more context to the pull request title and body. Additionally, the author should include tests to ensure that the changes do not introduce any new bugs or regressions.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/block.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the block.go file. However, the pull request title and body do not provide enough information about why this change is necessary. The pull request body only states that the change adds a context parameter to DN txn and tables, but it does not explain why this is important or what problem it solves.

Additionally, the pull request body includes a checklist of PR types, but none of the options are checked. This is likely an oversight, but it should be corrected before merging the pull request.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, the author should provide more information about why the context parameter is necessary. They should explain what problem it solves and how it improves the codebase. Additionally, the author should check the appropriate PR type in the checklist to ensure that the pull request is properly categorized.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/localseg.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the GetColumnDataById method in the localSegment struct in the localseg.go file.

There are no issues mentioned in the pull request, and the type of the pull request is not specified.

The changes made in the pull request are adding a context parameter to the GetColumnDataById method in the localSegment struct in the localseg.go file.

There are no apparent problems with the changes made in the pull request. However, it would be helpful to have more context on why the change was made and what problem it solves. Additionally, it would be beneficial to specify the type of the pull request and mention any issues it fixes.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/node.go:
This pull request adds a context parameter to the GetColumnDataById function in the node.go file. The context parameter is used to pass context information to the function.

There are a few issues with this pull request that need to be addressed:

1. The title of the pull request is not descriptive enough. It should clearly state what the pull request is trying to achieve.

2. The body of the pull request is incomplete. It does not explain why the context parameter is being added or what problem it solves.

3. The changes made in the pull request are incomplete. Only one function has been modified, but it is not clear if other functions in the same file need to be modified as well.

To improve this pull request, the following changes can be made:

1. The title of the pull request should be changed to something like "Add context parameter to GetColumnDataById function in node.go file". This clearly states what the pull request is trying to achieve.

2. The body of the pull request should be updated to explain why the context parameter is being added and what problem it solves. For example, it could state that the context parameter is being added to allow cancellation of the function call if it takes too long to execute.

3. The changes made in the pull request should be reviewed to ensure that all functions in the same file that require a context parameter have been modified. If other functions require a context parameter, they should be modified as well.

Overall, this pull request is a good start, but it needs more work to be complete. By addressing the issues mentioned above, the pull request can be improved and merged into the codebase.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/relation.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/relation.go file. The context parameter is used to propagate context information across API boundaries and between processes.

There are no issues with the title and body of the pull request. However, there are some suggestions to improve the changes made in the pull request:

• The changes made in the pull request are straightforward and do not require any optimization.
• The pull request should include a brief explanation of why the context parameter was added to each function. This will help other developers understand the reasoning behind the changes and make it easier to maintain the codebase in the future.
• The pull request should include a link to the issue(s) that it fixes. This will help other developers understand the context of the changes and ensure that the pull request addresses the issue(s) correctly.
• The pull request should include a brief explanation of how to test the changes made in the pull request. This will help other developers verify that the changes work as intended and prevent regressions.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/store.go:
The pull request adds context.Context to several functions in the store.go file. However, the pull request title and body do not provide enough information about the changes made. The pull request title should be more descriptive and provide a summary of the changes made. The body should explain why these changes are necessary and how they improve the codebase.

Additionally, the changes made in the pull request seem to be straightforward and do not require any optimization.

Here are some suggestions to improve the pull request:

• Provide a more descriptive title that summarizes the changes made in the pull request.
• Add a detailed description to the pull request body that explains why these changes are necessary and how they improve the codebase.
• Consider adding comments to the code to explain why context.Context is needed in these functions.
• Consider adding test cases to ensure that the changes made do not introduce any new bugs.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/sysblock.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to the GetColumnDataByNames function in the txnSysBlock struct in the sysblock.go file. The purpose of this change is not clear from the title or body of the pull request. The body of the pull request is incomplete and does not provide sufficient information about the changes made.

A suggestion to improve the pull request is to provide a clear explanation of why the context parameter is needed and how it will be used. Additionally, the pull request should include information on any potential issues that may arise from this change and how they will be addressed.

As for the changes made, they seem to be straightforward and do not introduce any new issues. However, it would be helpful to include more context on why this change was made and how it fits into the larger codebase.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/table.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the table.go file. However, the title and body of the pull request do not provide enough information about why this change is necessary. The body of the pull request only lists the changes made, without any explanation of why these changes are being made.

There are also some minor issues with the changes made in the pull request. For example, the function PrePrepareDedup has been modified to take a context parameter, but the function does not use the context parameter anywhere in its implementation. Similarly, the function DoPrecommitDedupByNode has been modified to take a context parameter, but the function does not use the context parameter anywhere in its implementation.

To address these issues, the pull request should be updated with a more detailed explanation of why the context parameter is being added to these functions. Additionally, the functions that have been modified to take a context parameter should be updated to use the context parameter in their implementation.

Finally, it would be helpful to include some information about how these changes will impact the performance or functionality of the codebase. This will help reviewers understand the benefits of these changes and identify any potential issues that may arise as a result of the changes.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/txn_test.go:
The pull request is titled "Add ctx in DN txn and tables" and the body only contains a checklist of PR types and a statement that the PR adds context to DN (data node) transactions and tables. The changes made in the pull request involve adding context.Background() to the Commit() and Rollback() calls in the txn_test.go file.

One issue with this pull request is that it lacks sufficient context and explanation. It is unclear why context is being added to these transactions and tables, and what impact this change will have on the codebase. Additionally, the body of the pull request only contains a checklist of PR types, which is not relevant to the changes being made.

To improve this pull request, the author should provide more detailed information about why context is being added to these transactions and tables, and what benefits this change will bring. They should also remove the irrelevant checklist from the body of the pull request.

As for the changes themselves, adding context.Background() to the Commit() and Rollback() calls is a good practice to ensure that the transactions are properly cancelled if the context is cancelled. However, it would be more efficient to pass the context to the transaction when it is created, rather than adding it to each Commit() and Rollback() call. This would reduce the amount of redundant code and make the codebase more efficient.

Here are review comments for file pkg/vm/engine/tae/txn/txnimpl/txndb.go:
The pull request adds a context parameter to several functions in the txndb.go file. The changes made are as follows:

• AddBlksWithMetaLoc function now takes a context parameter.
• GetByFilter function now takes a context parameter.
• PrePrepare function now takes a context parameter.

The pull request does not provide any explanation for why these changes are necessary, nor does it reference any issues that these changes are meant to address.

There are no apparent issues with the changes made in this pull request, but it would be helpful to have more context on why these changes were made. Additionally, it may be beneficial to add more descriptive names to the functions to better reflect their functionality.