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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

use uint64 for priority variable #18557

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

use uint64 for priority variable #18557

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

piggito
Copy link

@piggito piggito commented Sep 9, 2024

Changing priority variable from uint16 to uint64 allows for a wider range of values. For instance, we have a use case where we need unix timestamp in nanoseconds granularity which is not supported by uint16 but requires uint64.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: piggito
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign serathius for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

Hi @piggito. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@piggito piggito force-pushed the uint64_priority_queue branch 2 times, most recently from c7c452d to fb7c41d Compare September 9, 2024 15:40
@ivanvc
Copy link
Member

ivanvc commented Sep 27, 2024

Hi @piggito, thanks for your pull request. Unfortunately, this change would break the public API. I think you will have better odds at merging if you add a new function, EnqueueUint64() instead (along with its tests).

@piggito
new EnqueueUint64 function to support uint64 priority variable
bf81c66 
Signed-off-by: Juan Peña <juan3789@gmail.com>
@piggito
Copy link
Author

piggito commented Oct 1, 2024

hi @ivanvc thank you for your feedback, I updated PR with new EnqueueUint64() function

@jmhbnz
Copy link
Member

jmhbnz commented Oct 24, 2024

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

@piggito: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-etcd-verify bf81c66 link true /test pull-etcd-verify

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.69811% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.72%. Comparing base (f89dfed) to head (5ff8895).
Report is 195 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 5ff8895 differs from pull request most recent head bf81c66

Please upload reports for the commit bf81c66 to get more accurate results.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
server/storage/wal/wal.go 71.42% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
server/etcdserver/api/v3discovery/discovery.go 0.00% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
server/etcdserver/server.go 66.66% 2 Missing ⚠️
client/v3/client.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
etcdctl/ctlv3/command/completion_command.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
etcdctl/ctlv3/command/ep_command.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
etcdutl/etcdutl/completion_commmand.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
pkg/proxy/server.go 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
server/etcdserver/v3_server.go 87.50% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
server/storage/wal/file_pipeline.go 0.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
client/v3/experimental/recipes/priority_queue.go 70.58% <100.00%> (+3.92%) ⬆️
client/v3/retry_interceptor.go 65.61% <100.00%> (ø)
server/etcdserver/api/v3compactor/periodic.go 90.24% <100.00%> (ø)
server/lease/lessor.go 89.32% <100.00%> (+0.11%) ⬆️
server/storage/wal/repair.go 56.14% <100.00%> (ø)
client/v3/client.go 84.89% <0.00%> (ø)
etcdctl/ctlv3/command/completion_command.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
etcdctl/ctlv3/command/ep_command.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
etcdutl/etcdutl/completion_commmand.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pkg/proxy/server.go 60.61% <50.00%> (ø)
... and 5 more

... and 26 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #18557      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.76%   68.72%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35470    35493      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        24391    24392       +1     
- Misses       9658     9665       +7     
- Partials     1421     1436      +15

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f89dfed...bf81c66. Read the comment docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/clientv3 area/testing ok-to-test size/M
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@piggito @k8s-ci-robot @ivanvc @jmhbnz @codecov-commenter