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

Enforce concurrency on KBucket internal dictionaries #1879

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 1, 2022

Conversation

greymistcube
Copy link
Contributor

@greymistcube greymistcube commented Mar 31, 2022

Partially addresses #1872. Note that only internal dictionaries are now concurrent, but KBucket itself is not. KBucket needs to orchestrate access to two internal dictionaries. Overall orchestration of the dictionaries will be handled in a different PR while also dealing with #1880.

Additionally, internal replacement cache size is limited to the size of a KBucket, i.e. the total number of Addresses a KBucket can hold up to is twice its "bucket size". This results in a slight behavioral change of a KBucket. See ProtocolTest.cs in the code.

@greymistcube greymistcube self-assigned this Mar 31, 2022
@greymistcube greymistcube marked this pull request as ready for review March 31, 2022 03:09
@greymistcube greymistcube changed the title Refactor/kbucket Enforce concurrency on KBucket internal dictionaries Mar 31, 2022
@riemannulus
Copy link
Member

https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/planetarium/libplanet/1267/workflows/51b8fb09-4a3d-492c-b7ad-87f0fb5f40e9/jobs/7092

I guess this is not a flaky test. could you check why this test is broken? 🤔

@greymistcube
Copy link
Contributor Author

@riemannulus Not sure... seems flaky even though it isn't tagged as such. 😶
Passes on other trials. 🙄

Comment on lines +301 to +302
Assert.DoesNotContain(transportB.AsPeer, transport.Peers);
Assert.Contains(transportC.AsPeer, transport.Peers);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What changes lead to this result?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Additionally, internal replacement cache size is limited to the size of a KBucket, i.e. the total number of Addresses a KBucket can hold up to is twice its "bucket size". This results in a slight behavioral change of a KBucket. See ProtocolTest.cs in the code.

This. 😐
Since the test is performed with a KBucket of size 1, only C remains in ReplacementCache as B is overwritten by the later addition of C.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👌

limebell
limebell previously approved these changes Mar 31, 2022
Count added

Head and Tail added

Clear added

Unused variable cleanup

Logger added

Peers and PeerStates added

Cleanup

Missing overload

Filename change

Method name change for clarity

Documentation

Minor additional description
Changelog update
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 284 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +221 -63
Percentile : 68.4%

Total files changed: 7

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +6 -0
.cs : +215 -63

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@greymistcube greymistcube merged commit c23d317 into planetarium:main Apr 1, 2022
@greymistcube greymistcube deleted the refactor/kbucket branch April 8, 2022 10:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants