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 into store-centric API #101

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Jan 16, 2019

Conversation

rrichardson
Copy link
Contributor

@rrichardson rrichardson commented Dec 21, 2018

This depends on the 2018 edition PR #100

The Store types are now

SingleStore,
MultiStore,
IntegerStore,
MultiIntegerStore

The Reader/Writer types have been completely removed.. this now uses

lmdb::{ 
  Transaction, 
   RwTransaction, 
   RoTransaction, 
}

all *Store::get methods take a T: Transaction instance.

1 additional interface change:

  1. When creating from Rkv::open... if we actually made a method for every permutation of store-type, flags, and create/not we'd have 16 create* functions.. So I created 4 open* functions which all take a open : bool and a flags : DatabaseFlags which all do what you'd expect.

@rrichardson rrichardson changed the title [WIP] Refactor into store-centric API Refactor into store-centric API Dec 22, 2018
@rrichardson
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK.. @ncloudioj @mykmelez - This should be good to go. When fixing up the tests, I'm pretty happy how the types and lifetimes got cleaned up a little.

IntegerStore now will only work against a single type of PrimitiveInt (you can still open it with the wrong type)

Also, check out the Rkv::open* methods, I don't having to pass the extra params.. I guess the other option is to create a StoreConfig to house the flags and create-vs-open option.

@mykmelez mykmelez self-requested a review January 4, 2019 17:42
@mykmelez
Copy link
Contributor

mykmelez commented Jan 4, 2019

@rrichardson, this branch could use a merge from master as well. Currently it still shows changes that have landed on master in #100.

@rrichardson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mykmelez - huh.. git tells me that my store-api-refactor branch is up to date with master.

@rrichardson
Copy link
Contributor Author

also says its up to date with rrichardson:2018-edition which merged in your changes..

@mykmelez
Copy link
Contributor

mykmelez commented Jan 4, 2019

Hmm, strange. The "Files changed" tab of this pull request is still showing the changes from #100. For example, examples/iterator.rs shows replacement of extern crate rkv; with use rkv;, even though those changes have landed on master.

@mykmelez
Copy link
Contributor

mykmelez commented Jan 4, 2019

Strangely, GitHub displays an up-to-date diff when I compare mozilla/master to rrichardson/store-api-refactor:

mozilla:master...rrichardson:store-api-refactor

It's just this PR's "Files changed" view that is out-of-date.

@rrichardson What happens when you merge the upstream master branch into this branch? When I do so, Git tells me that this branch is "Already up to date!" But then it creates a merge commit anyway:

01-04 13:17 > git merge upstream/master
Already up to date!
Merge made by the 'recursive' strategy.
01-04 13:17 > git log
commit 8d0834386aa3be8124ad37d83fa44668a938ed83 (HEAD -> rrichardson-store-api-refactor)
Merge: 25316f3 11442e2
Author: Myk Melez <myk@mykzilla.org>
Date:   Fri Jan 4 13:17:39 2019

    Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into rrichardson-store-api-refactor

I wonder if pushing such a commit to this branch would convince GitHub to update "Files changed."

@mykmelez
Copy link
Contributor

mykmelez commented Jan 7, 2019

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/mozilla/rkv into store-api-refactor

Thanks, that seems to have worked! The "Files changed" tab now only shows the changes on this branch, which makes it easier to review!

Copy link
Contributor

@mykmelez mykmelez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, check out the Rkv::open* methods, I don't having to pass the extra params.. I guess the other option is to create a StoreConfig to house the flags and create-vs-open option.

I don't know that there's a way to eliminate all extra arguments without multiplexing the open* functions, but a StoreConfig struct would halve them from two to one, and its value could be None if the StoreConfig parameter was optional (and the consumer wants the default config):

let store = env.open_single("foo", None);

Reducing configuration to a single argument would also allow us to retain open_or_create()_ variants without ending up with 16 permutations, as we'd only need a single _create_ variant for each open* function, for a total of 8:

pub fn open_single() {}
pub fn open_integer() {}
pub fn open_multi() {}
pub fn open_multi_integer() {}

pub fn open_or_create_single() {}
pub fn open_or_create_integer() {}
pub fn open_or_create_multi() {}
pub fn open_or_create_multi_integer() {}

And that would be useful, given that create: true without flags seems to be one of the more popular configurations of the open* calls.

Either way, given a StoreConfig struct that derives Default, Clone, and Copy:

#[derive(Default, Copy, Clone)]
pub struct StoreConfig {
    create: bool,
    flags: Option<DatabaseFlags>,
}

Consumers could pass StoreConfig::default() explicitly to indicate they want the default configuration, which is more self-documenting than the true, None argument pair (although it's also longer):

let store = env.open_single("foo", StoreConfig::default());

Consumers could also create static variants for popular configurations:

static CREATE: StoreConfig = StoreConfig { create: true, flags: None };let store = env.open_single("foo", CREATE);

(I might bikeshed the name of the struct a bit. The leveldb crate calls its equivalent simply Options, which seems simpler and can be disambiguated if necessary via declarations like use Store::Options as StoreOptions.)

examples/simple-store.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/env.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/env.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/store/integermulti.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/store/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rrichardson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Arg.. I just ran cargo +nightly fmt and it still finds differences..

Copy link
Contributor

@mykmelez mykmelez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, @rrichardson, this looks great. I went through it again and noticed a few more nits, but no blockers; so this can land as-is, with the nits addressed in followups as we see fit. Thanks for all your hard work on this significant enhancement!

})
}

/// Provides a cursor to all of the values for the duplicate entries that match this key
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: this should say that the function provides the first value that matches this key.

match self.iter.next() {
None => None,
Some(Ok((key, bytes))) => Some((key, read_transform(Ok(bytes)))),
Some(Err(_)) => None,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note: I'm going to change what Iter.next() returns in the Some(Err) case over in #105. But I'll merge this PR first, so that PR doesn't break it, and then update that PR as needed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

}
}

fn read_transform_owned(val: Result<&[u8], lmdb::Error>) -> Result<Option<OwnedValue>, StoreError> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: I don't see any uses of this in the codebase. Is it needed (or will soon be needed)?

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 this was related to the MultiIter impl that I mostly removed because I failed to implement it.


/// Insert a value at the specified key.
/// This put will allow duplicate entries. If you wish to have duplicate entries
/// rejected, use the `put_with_flags` function and specify NO_DUP_DATA
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: we should add tests for the put_with_flags() functions as well, although we can do that in a followup.

}

/*
impl<'env> Iterator for MultiIter<'env> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: this comment block (and the next one) references a MultiIter type, but that type isn't defined anywhere (not even in another comment block). It'd be helpful to include a declaration of that type along with this partial implementation, even if it's just a skeletal one. Or, perhaps better, move this code into an issue that tracks the problem and its resolution.

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 would like to support a MultiIter. I have not been able to make it work re: lifetimes, it would need to copy over the cursor on every iteration (I think?) since it is an iterator of iterators.
I'd say leave it there, but ad a TODO or somesuch to remind us to do that in the future.


use crate::value::Value;

fn read_transform(val: Result<&[u8], lmdb::Error>) -> Result<Option<Value>, StoreError> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: the two implementations of read_transform() in single.rs and multi.rs are identical and could be refactored into their super module store.rs.

lazy_static = "1.0.2"
lmdb-rkv = "0.9"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: I'd preserve the alphabetical ordering here.

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

2 participants