Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat: support schedule only executes once in random one cluster when it's deployed in k8s clusters mode. #61
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: support schedule only executes once in random one cluster when it's deployed in k8s clusters mode. #61
Changes from all commits
6ec7290
4fb1881
cf4792b
190a189
d73517d
201b1d0
aecee0a
2f46c2c
176ec2c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a lock provider interface for better abstraction.
Instead of directly importing
RedisLock
, consider creating an abstract lock provider interface to support multiple distributed lock implementations.Consider this approach:
And create a new file
lib/lock/index.js
: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.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Lock manager implementation needs error handling improvements
The lock manager usage in strategy files (worker.js and all.js) shows:
Required improvements:
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify lock manager usage in strategy files.
Ensure that the lock manager is properly used in strategy files with appropriate error handling and lock release.
Let's verify the implementation in strategy files:
Let me gather more information about error handling patterns with a different approach.
Let me try one more search to check for error handling with a corrected pattern.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
Length of output: 1427
Script:
Length of output: 1390
Script:
Length of output: 356
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.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve constructor's type safety and validation
The constructor needs several improvements:
prefixKey
construction is prone to null reference errorsConsider this improved implementation:
📝 Committable suggestion
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 14 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 23 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 32 in lib/lock/base.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
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.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance abstract methods documentation and contract
The abstract methods need improvements:
Consider this improved implementation:
Additionally, consider adding implementation guidance in the class JSDoc:
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.
Ensure locks are released only by the owner
Currently, the
release
method deletes the lock key without checking if the releasing instance owns the lock. In distributed systems, it's possible that the lock has expired or was acquired by another process. Consider implementing a mechanism to ensure that only the owner who acquired the lock can release it.One approach is to store a unique identifier (e.g., a UUID) when setting the lock and check this identifier when releasing the lock.
Example:
This ensures that a lock is only released by the process that acquired it.
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 49 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 18)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 16)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 14)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
Check warning on line 50 in lib/lock/redis_lock.js
GitHub Actions / Node.js / Test (ubuntu-latest, 20)
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.
Add error handling and timeout for lock acquisition.
The lock acquisition needs proper error handling and a timeout to prevent indefinite waiting.
Consider adding try-catch and timeout:
📝 Committable suggestion
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.
Add error handling and make execution asynchronous.
The execution block needs proper error handling and should handle potential async operations in
sendAll()
.Consider adding try-catch and making it async:
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.
Ensure lock release with proper error handling.
The lock release should be in a finally block and include error handling to ensure proper cleanup.
Restructure the code:
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.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance lock acquisition robustness and error handling
The lock acquisition logic needs improvements in several areas:
Apply this diff:
📝 Committable suggestion
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.
Add error handling and ensure proper async execution
The task execution block lacks error handling and might not properly handle async operations.
Apply this diff:
📝 Committable suggestion
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.
Ensure lock release with proper error handling
The lock release should be:
Apply this diff to restructure the entire handler method:
📝 Committable suggestion
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.
Fix incorrect mocha version number
The specified mocha version
^10.8.2
is invalid as the latest stable version of mocha is 10.2.0. This could be causing the npm test failures mentioned in the PR description.Apply this diff to fix the version:
Additionally, since the project already uses
egg-bin
for testing, please verify if adding mocha directly is necessary.📝 Committable suggestion
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.
It won't pass the ci in node 14 env without mocha module.
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.
@oneWalker, thank you for the clarification. I've noted that the CI in Node 14 environments requires the
mocha
module to pass.✏️ Learnings added