Update license headers / Format codes #2777
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Vdaas CI <[email protected]>
Deploying vald with
|
| Latest commit: |
ca67a11
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://5e2afd65.vald.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://formatter-go-and-yaml-format-w3pk.vald.pages.dev |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request includes documentation updates across multiple proto files within the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
apis/proto/v1/vald/search.proto (1)
Line range hint
386-386: Remove extra forward slash in commentThere's an extra forward slash in the comment line that should be removed for consistent formatting.
- // // --- + // ---apis/proto/v1/vald/remove.proto (2)
Line range hint
65-89: LGTM: Enhanced documentation with valuable implementation detailsThe added notice provides crucial information about timestamp-based deletions and the AND condition behavior. The troubleshooting section is well-structured and informative.
Consider adding line breaks between table rows in the troubleshooting section for better readability in raw proto files:
// | name | common reason | how to resolve | // | :---------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | + // // | CANCELLED | Executed cancel() of rpc from client/server-side or network problems between client and server. | Check the code, especially around timeout and connection management, and fix if needed. | + // // | DEADLINE_EXCEEDED | The RPC timeout setting is too short on the client/server side. | Check the gRPC timeout setting on both the client and server sides and fix it if needed. |🧰 Tools
🪛 buf (1.47.2)
90-90: RPC request type "TimestampRequest" should be named "RemoveByTimestampRequest" or "RemoveRemoveByTimestampRequest".
(RPC_REQUEST_STANDARD_NAME)
90-90: RPC response type "Locations" should be named "RemoveByTimestampResponse" or "RemoveRemoveByTimestampResponse".
(RPC_RESPONSE_STANDARD_NAME)
Line range hint
130-149: LGTM with suggestion: Consider enhancing the size limitation noticeThe documentation maintains consistency and provides a crucial warning about gRPC message size limitations.
Consider enhancing the notice with specific size limits and recommendations:
// <div class="notice"> // gRPC has a message size limitation.<br> - // Please be careful that the size of the request exceeds the limit. + // The default gRPC message size limit is 4MB.<br> + // Please ensure your request payload does not exceed this limit.<br> + // For larger payloads, consider using the StreamRemove RPC instead. // </div>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
apis/proto/v1/vald/filter.proto(5 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/index.proto(1 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/insert.proto(4 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/object.proto(3 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/remove.proto(7 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/search.proto(16 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/update.proto(4 hunks)apis/proto/v1/vald/upsert.proto(4 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- apis/proto/v1/vald/upsert.proto
- apis/proto/v1/vald/object.proto
- apis/proto/v1/vald/update.proto
- apis/proto/v1/vald/filter.proto
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 buf (1.47.2)
apis/proto/v1/vald/index.proto
40-42: "payload.v1.Empty" is used as the request or response type for multiple RPCs.
(RPC_REQUEST_RESPONSE_UNIQUE)
40-40: RPC request type "Empty" should be named "IndexDetailRequest" or "IndexIndexDetailRequest".
(RPC_REQUEST_STANDARD_NAME)
40-40: RPC response type "Detail" should be named "IndexDetailResponse" or "IndexIndexDetailResponse".
(RPC_RESPONSE_STANDARD_NAME)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
apis/proto/v1/vald/index.proto (2)
Line range hint 1-15: LGTM: License header is properly updated
The copyright year range has been correctly updated to include 2024.
🧰 Tools
🪛 buf (1.47.2)
34-36: "payload.v1.Empty" is used as the request or response type for multiple RPCs.
(RPC_REQUEST_RESPONSE_UNIQUE)
34-34: RPC request type "Empty" should be named "IndexInfoRequest" or "IndexIndexInfoRequest".
(RPC_REQUEST_STANDARD_NAME)
34-34: RPC response type "Count" should be named "IndexInfoResponse" or "IndexIndexInfoResponse".
(RPC_RESPONSE_STANDARD_NAME)
40-42: "payload.v1.Empty" is used as the request or response type for multiple RPCs.
(RPC_REQUEST_RESPONSE_UNIQUE)
40-40: RPC request type "Empty" should be named "IndexDetailRequest" or "IndexIndexDetailRequest".
(RPC_REQUEST_STANDARD_NAME)
40-40: RPC response type "Detail" should be named "IndexDetailResponse" or "IndexIndexDetailResponse".
(RPC_RESPONSE_STANDARD_NAME)
46-46: RPC request type "Empty" should be named "IndexStatisticsRequest" or "IndexIndexStatisticsRequest".
(RPC_REQUEST_STANDARD_NAME)
46-46: RPC response type "Statistics" should be named "IndexStatisticsResponse" or "IndexIndexStatisticsResponse".
(RPC_RESPONSE_STANDARD_NAME)
37-37: LGTM: Formatting changes
The whitespace adjustments improve code readability and maintain consistent formatting throughout the file.
Also applies to: 43-43
apis/proto/v1/vald/search.proto (3)
Line range hint 153-157: Documentation improvements look great!
The added notice sections about gRPC message size limitations in multi-request methods are valuable additions that help prevent potential issues. The consistent structure across all method documentation makes it easier to understand and use the API.
Also applies to: 189-193, 345-349, 381-385
46-48: Excellent error documentation improvements!
The added troubleshooting sections with detailed error tables provide clear guidance for common issues. The error descriptions and resolution steps are well-tailored to each method type (vector-based vs ID-based searches).
Also applies to: 78-80, 111-113, 139-141, 170-172, 206-208, 237-239, 270-272, 303-305, 331-333, 362-364, 398-400
Line range hint 1-413: Overall documentation updates are well-structured and valuable!
The changes have successfully:
- Added clear troubleshooting guidance for each method
- Included important warnings about gRPC message size limitations
- Maintained consistent documentation structure across all methods
- Provided method-specific error resolution steps
These improvements will significantly help developers in using the Search service effectively.
apis/proto/v1/vald/remove.proto (2)
46-48: LGTM: Improved documentation formatting
The added whitespace enhances readability while maintaining consistency with other method documentation.
Line range hint 99-118: LGTM: Comprehensive streaming implementation documentation
The added documentation effectively explains the bidirectional streaming concept and provides valuable guidance for handling large-scale operations. The troubleshooting section maintains consistency with other methods.
apis/proto/v1/vald/insert.proto (3)
47-47: LGTM! Documentation formatting improvement
The added newline improves the readability of the troubleshooting table while maintaining proper proto documentation standards.
79-81: LGTM! Consistent documentation formatting
The added spacing improves readability while maintaining consistency with other RPC method documentation.
Line range hint 93-112: LGTM! Important warning about gRPC limitations added
The added notice about gRPC message size limitations is particularly relevant for the MultiInsert method. The formatting improvements maintain consistency across the service documentation.
Let's verify the actual gRPC message size limit configuration:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that the gRPC message size configurations are well-defined in the codebase:
- Server-side configurations show default values of 0 (unlimited) for both
max_receive_message_sizeandmax_send_message_sizeacross various components - Client-side configurations also support message size limits through options like
MaxRecvMsgSize,MaxSendMsgSize, etc. - The configurations are consistently applied through Kubernetes ConfigMaps and Helm charts
LGTM! The warning about gRPC message size limits is accurate and well-documented
The documentation warning is appropriate since:
- The default configuration allows unlimited message sizes (0)
- Users can configure size limits through server and client configurations if needed
- The warning helps users be proactive about potential issues when sending large batches of vectors
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for gRPC message size configurations in the codebase
rg -g '!vendor/*' -g '*.{go,yaml,yml}' -i 'grpc.*size|maxmessagesize|message.*size'
Length of output: 68610
|
[CHATOPS:HELP] ChatOps commands.
|
Update license headers / Format Go codes and YAML files.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Filter,Insert,Remove,Search,Update, andUpsert.