-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
Memdb Txn Commit race condition fix #16871
Changes from all commits
63bde7e
b941d1f
48fbb70
731c5ce
de49cc5
0e0f564
0ea6d14
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
```release-note:bug | ||
Fix a race condition where an event is published before the data associated is commited to memdb. | ||
``` |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ | ||
package state | ||
|
||
import ( | ||
"fmt" | ||
"github.com/hashicorp/go-memdb" | ||
"github.com/stretchr/testify/mock" | ||
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require" | ||
"golang.org/x/sync/errgroup" | ||
"testing" | ||
"time" | ||
) | ||
|
||
func testValidSchema() *memdb.DBSchema { | ||
return &memdb.DBSchema{ | ||
Tables: map[string]*memdb.TableSchema{ | ||
"main": { | ||
Name: "main", | ||
Indexes: map[string]*memdb.IndexSchema{ | ||
"id": { | ||
Name: "id", | ||
Unique: true, | ||
Indexer: &memdb.StringFieldIndex{Field: "ID"}, | ||
}, | ||
"foo": { | ||
Name: "foo", | ||
Indexer: &memdb.StringFieldIndex{Field: "Foo"}, | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
type TestObject struct { | ||
ID string | ||
Foo string | ||
} | ||
|
||
// This test verify that the new data in a TXN is commited at the time that publishFunc is called. | ||
// To do so, the publish func is mocked, a read on ch1 means that publish is called and blocked, | ||
// ch2 permit to control the publish func and unblock it when receiving a signal. | ||
func Test_txn_Commit(t *testing.T) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Would you mind adding a comment here to explain what this test is exercising? If I understand correctly:
Before your fix, the test would fail because |
||
db, err := memdb.NewMemDB(testValidSchema()) | ||
require.NoError(t, err) | ||
publishFunc := mockPublishFuncType{} | ||
tx := txn{ | ||
Txn: db.Txn(true), | ||
Index: 0, | ||
publish: publishFunc.Execute, | ||
} | ||
ch1 := make(chan struct{}) | ||
ch2 := make(chan struct{}) | ||
getCh := make(chan memdb.ResultIterator) | ||
group := errgroup.Group{} | ||
group.Go(func() error { | ||
after := time.After(2 * time.Second) | ||
select { | ||
case <-ch1: | ||
tx2 := txn{ | ||
Txn: db.Txn(false), | ||
Index: 0, | ||
publish: publishFunc.Execute, | ||
} | ||
get, err := tx2.Get("main", "id") | ||
if err != nil { | ||
return err | ||
} | ||
close(ch2) | ||
getCh <- get | ||
case <-after: | ||
close(ch2) | ||
return fmt.Errorf("test timed out") | ||
} | ||
return nil | ||
}) | ||
|
||
publishFunc.On("Execute", mock.Anything, mock.Anything).Run(func(args mock.Arguments) { | ||
close(ch1) | ||
<-ch2 | ||
}).Return(nil) | ||
|
||
err = tx.Insert("main", TestObject{ID: "1", Foo: "foo"}) | ||
require.NoError(t, err) | ||
err = tx.Commit() | ||
require.NoError(t, err) | ||
get := <-getCh | ||
require.NotNil(t, get) | ||
next := get.Next() | ||
require.NotNil(t, next) | ||
|
||
val := next.(TestObject) | ||
require.Equal(t, val.ID, "1") | ||
require.Equal(t, val.Foo, "foo") | ||
|
||
err = group.Wait() | ||
require.NoError(t, err) | ||
|
||
} |
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
Do we still need this to be a struct member, rather than just calling
processChanges
directly inCommit
?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.
Not sure that's feasible without major changes to the data struct, maybe I'm not understanding 🤔. Also, it could be handy to have the prePublish mockeable for future tests.