-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
Fix goroutine leaks in plugin/sampling/strategystore/adaptive #5310
Merged
yurishkuro
merged 3 commits into
jaegertracing:main
from
WillSewell:fix-goroutine-leaks-in-sampling-strategystore-adaptive
Mar 29, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | ||
// Copyright (c) 2024 The Jaeger Authors. | ||
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | ||
|
||
package adaptive | ||
|
||
import ( | ||
"testing" | ||
|
||
"github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/pkg/testutils" | ||
) | ||
|
||
func TestMain(m *testing.M) { | ||
testutils.VerifyGoLeaks(m) | ||
} |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
You added this to the interface, but I am not seeing any non-test code that's actually calling it.
Adding Closer to interface it often contentious, some people argue that if you create an object via
NewX() *X
, you already have the ability to call Close on it without adding Close function to the interface that X implements. This doesn't work well when factories are involved since the factory does return an interface, not an actual struct. One other workaround to that is doing a runtime check forio.Closer
interface and only then calling close - this is why I am asking about prod code calling it.I'm ok to keep io.Closer in the interface because both real implementations are now closable (static store used to not have close before we added file watcher to it)
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.
Yes I think that makes sense.
Is there a fundamental reason why factories shouldn't return a struct instead of an interface? (Other than it being a breaking change to make in this instance).
Prod code is not calling
Close
- do you have a preference between the current implementation vs the runtime check in tests? I don't feel strongly.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.
Yes - polymorphism. The whole point of a factory is to abstract what underlying implementation it creates, which means it always returns an interface.
I actually think our pattern is that the main code only calls factory.Close() and the factory is generally responsible for releasing any resources. E.g. we don't call Close on SpanReader that we obtain from the factory.