-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
*: update protobuf-related deps #33329
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but I had some minor comments on the gogoproto commit.
Reviewed 90 of 90 files at r1.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained
Makefile, line 1087 at r1 (raw file):
gofmt -s -w $(GO_SOURCES) touch $@ # -e 's!cockroachdb/cockroach/pkg/(prometheus/client_model)!\1/go!g' \
?
pkg/roachpb/errors.go, line 530 at r1 (raw file):
"previous write with future timestamp %s within uncertainty interval `t <= %v`; "+ "observed timestamps: %s", e.ReadTimestamp, e.ExistingTimestamp, e.MaxTimestamp, ts.String())
It's a shame that these aren't omitted when they're empty via some default stringer. Then again they probably are, but we have the default stringer disabled? Anyway, this is fine.
pkg/server/node.go, line 376 at r1 (raw file):
ctx := n.AnnotateCtx(context.Background()) if err := n.stores.OnClusterVersionChange(ctx, cv); err != nil { log.Fatal(ctx, errors.Wrapf(err, "updating cluster version to %v", cv))
What forced you to make these changes?
599cade
to
fcf2476
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you! Updated.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (and 1 stale)
Makefile, line 1087 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, tbg (Tobias Grieger) wrote…
?
Oops, leftover, removed. We no longer need this one.
pkg/server/node.go, line 376 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, tbg (Tobias Grieger) wrote…
What forced you to make these changes?
I think that while I was fixing stuff I hit this panic and the message didn't look good (I don't think it has a Stringer implemented).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained
0de8e7a
to
0ed2041
Compare
This change updates the protobuf deps and makes various fixes. Most fixes are related to new `XXX_` fields. In particular, the new fields interfere with JSON marshaling and printing with `%v`. Note that the new fields could be omitted but that is undesirable: `XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral` is a good idea and there would be a performance cost associated with removing `XXX_sizecache`. Some more info on important protobuf changes here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/F5xFHTfwRnY Change lists: gogo/protobuf@1adfc12...936d59a googleapis/go-genproto@f676e0f...a1fde74 Note that gogo/protobuf was forked under cockroachdb, and I made a fix in our fork. This commit should be reviewed: cockroachdb/gogoproto@d26e6ac Informs cockroachdb#30774. Release note: None
0ed2041
to
db4a8a1
Compare
bors r+ |
33329: *: update protobuf-related deps r=RaduBerinde a=RaduBerinde This change updates the protobuf deps and makes various fixes. Most fixes are related to new `XXX_` fields. In particular, the new fields interfere with JSON marshaling and printing with `%v`. Note that the new fields could be omitted but that is undesirable: `XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral` is a good idea and there would be a performance cost associated with removing `XXX_sizecache`. Some more info on important protobuf changes here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/F5xFHTfwRnY Change lists: gogo/protobuf@1adfc12...936d59a googleapis/go-genproto@f676e0f...a1fde74 Note that gogo/protobuf was forked under cockroachdb, and I made a fix in our fork. This commit should be reviewed: gogo/protobuf@d0154be Informs #30774. Release note: None I ran some before/after tests with a KV workload, didn't see any difference beyond the usual variations. Co-authored-by: Radu Berinde <[email protected]>
Build succeeded |
Hooray!
…On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:06 PM craig[bot] ***@***.***> wrote:
Build succeeded
- GitHub CI (Cockroach)
<https://teamcity.cockroachdb.com/viewLog.html?buildId=1078979&buildTypeId=Cockroach_UnitTests>
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#33329 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE135NcDRIvqE5-cKAS2rGpKOCy0xsr5ks5u_g5UgaJpZM4Zehsk>
.
|
This change updates the protobuf deps and makes various fixes. Most
fixes are related to new
XXX_
fields. In particular, the new fieldsinterfere with JSON marshaling and printing with
%v
.Note that the new fields could be omitted but that is undesirable:
XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral
is a good idea and there would be a performancecost associated with removing
XXX_sizecache
.Some more info on important protobuf changes here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/F5xFHTfwRnY
Change lists:
gogo/protobuf@1adfc12...936d59a
googleapis/go-genproto@f676e0f...a1fde74
Note that gogo/protobuf was forked under cockroachdb, and I made a fix
in our fork. This commit should be reviewed:
gogo/protobuf@d0154be
Informs #30774.
Release note: None
I ran some before/after tests with a KV workload, didn't see any difference beyond the usual variations.