Skip to content

[BUG] OBO between log service and compaction. #4276

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 15, 2025
Merged

[BUG] OBO between log service and compaction. #4276

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 15, 2025

Conversation

rescrv
Copy link
Contributor

@rescrv rescrv commented Apr 14, 2025

Compaction assumes that enumeration position t_i means t_i was the last
record seen and therefore next reader should read from t_i + 1.

Log service was built and tested for t_i meaning t_i was the first
record to return.

Somehow it passed tests, so let's see if this one does.

Note: I changed the go code, but only by moving a +1 out a layer. The
inner version was inconsistent with convention, so I updated it.

Compaction assumes that enumeration position t_i means t_i was the last
record seen and therefore next reader should read from t_i + 1.

Log service was built and tested for t_i meaning t_i was the first
record to return.

Somehow it passed tests, so let's see if this one does.
Copy link

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

  • Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
  • Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
  • Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
  • Are error messages user-friendly?
  • Have all documentation changes needed been made?
  • Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

  • Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
  • Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

  • Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)

@rescrv rescrv merged commit e33f770 into main Apr 15, 2025
68 checks passed
rescrv added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 15, 2025
@rescrv rescrv deleted the rescrv/obo branch April 15, 2025 15:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants