feat(server): allow A/B test with a restricted set of rules #10966
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@fabrichter has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 22 minutes and 18 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the Changes
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: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java (1)
483-487:⚠️ Potential issueImprove A/B test condition and add validation.
The current implementation has potential issues:
- The condition
abTest.contains("only")is too broad and could match unintended test names.- Missing validation that
onlyRulesis not empty when enabling the restriction.- No logging when restrictions are applied.
Apply this diff to improve the implementation:
- if (onlyUsers.contains(params.getOrDefault("username", "")) || - (abTest != null && abTest.contains("only"))) { + String username = params.getOrDefault("username", ""); + boolean isTestUser = !onlyUsers.isEmpty() && onlyUsers.contains(username); + boolean isOnlyTest = abTest != null && abTest.contains("only_rules_test"); + if ((isTestUser || isOnlyTest) && !onlyRules.isEmpty()) { useEnabledOnly = true; enabledRules = onlyRules; + log.debug("Applying rule restrictions for user: {}, isTestUser: {}, isOnlyTest: {}, rules: {}", + username, isTestUser, isOnlyTest, onlyRules); + } else if (isTestUser || isOnlyTest) { + log.warn("Rule restrictions not applied because onlyRules is empty. User: {}, isTestUser: {}, isOnlyTest: {}", + username, isTestUser, isOnlyTest); }This implementation:
- Uses a more specific test name to avoid accidental matches
- Validates that
onlyRulesis not empty before applying restrictions- Adds logging for debugging and monitoring purposes
Run the following script to verify the A/B test name usage:
| private final static List<String> onlyUsers; | ||
| private final static List<String> onlyRules; | ||
|
|
||
| static { | ||
| String onlyUsersEnv = System.getenv("LT_TEST_ONLY_USERS"); | ||
| if (onlyUsersEnv == null) { | ||
| onlyUsersEnv = ""; | ||
| } | ||
| String onlyRulesEnv = System.getenv("LT_TEST_ONLY_RULES"); | ||
| if (onlyRulesEnv == null) { | ||
| onlyRulesEnv = ""; | ||
| } | ||
| onlyUsers = Arrays.asList(onlyUsersEnv.split(",")); | ||
| onlyRules = Arrays.asList(onlyRulesEnv.split(",")); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve environment variable handling and validation.
The current implementation has several potential issues:
- Splitting an empty string creates a list with one empty element, which could cause issues with
contains()checks. - Missing validation of environment variable values.
- No logging of initialization values for debugging purposes.
Apply this diff to improve the implementation:
private final static List<String> onlyUsers;
private final static List<String> onlyRules;
static {
String onlyUsersEnv = System.getenv("LT_TEST_ONLY_USERS");
if (onlyUsersEnv == null) {
- onlyUsersEnv = "";
+ onlyUsers = Collections.emptyList();
+ } else {
+ onlyUsers = Arrays.stream(onlyUsersEnv.split(","))
+ .map(String::trim)
+ .filter(s -> !s.isEmpty())
+ .collect(Collectors.toList());
}
String onlyRulesEnv = System.getenv("LT_TEST_ONLY_RULES");
if (onlyRulesEnv == null) {
- onlyRulesEnv = "";
+ onlyRules = Collections.emptyList();
+ } else {
+ onlyRules = Arrays.stream(onlyRulesEnv.split(","))
+ .map(String::trim)
+ .filter(s -> !s.isEmpty())
+ .collect(Collectors.toList());
}
- onlyUsers = Arrays.asList(onlyUsersEnv.split(","));
- onlyRules = Arrays.asList(onlyRulesEnv.split(","));
+ log.info("Initialized A/B test restrictions - users: {}, rules: {}", onlyUsers, onlyRules);
}This implementation:
- Handles empty/null environment variables correctly
- Trims whitespace and filters empty values
- Adds logging for debugging purposes
Consider adding Javadoc to document the format and purpose of these environment variables:
/**
* List of usernames for A/B testing with restricted rules.
* Populated from LT_TEST_ONLY_USERS environment variable.
* Format: comma-separated list of usernames
*/
private final static List<String> onlyUsers;
/**
* List of rule IDs enabled for A/B testing.
* Populated from LT_TEST_ONLY_RULES environment variable.
* Format: comma-separated list of rule IDs
*/
private final static List<String> onlyRules;
languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java (1)
547-553: Add a comment explaining the A/B testing logic.While the implementation is correct, adding a comment would help explain the purpose and impact of applying test rules.
Consider adding this comment:
+ // Apply A/B test rules for specific users/clients/languages + // This overrides normal rule selection and enables only the test rules if (shouldApplyTestRules(params, agent, lang, abTest)) { log.debug("Applying test rules for user: {}, language: {}, client: {}", params.getOrDefault("username", ""), lang.getShortCodeWithCountryAndVariant(), agent); useEnabledOnly = true; enabledRules = onlyTestRules; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
languagetool-server/src/main/java/org/languagetool/server/TextChecker.java (1)
107-178: LGTM! Well-documented and robust implementation.The implementation of test restriction fields and their initialization is well-structured with:
- Clear Javadoc documentation for each field
- Robust environment variable handling
- Proper empty/null checks
- Debug logging
| private boolean shouldApplyTestRules(Map<String, String> params, String agent, Language lang, List<String> abTest) { | ||
| String username = params.getOrDefault("username", ""); | ||
| return (onlyTestUsers.contains(username) || (abTest != null && abTest.contains("only"))) && | ||
| onlyTestLanguages.contains(lang.getShortCodeWithCountryAndVariant()) && | ||
| onlyTestClients.contains(agent); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improving readability of the boolean conditions.
While the logic is correct, the complex boolean expression could be more readable by breaking it down into named components.
Consider this refactoring:
private boolean shouldApplyTestRules(Map<String, String> params, String agent, Language lang, List<String> abTest) {
String username = params.getOrDefault("username", "");
- return (onlyTestUsers.contains(username) || (abTest != null && abTest.contains("only"))) &&
- onlyTestLanguages.contains(lang.getShortCodeWithCountryAndVariant()) &&
- onlyTestClients.contains(agent);
+ boolean isTestUser = onlyTestUsers.contains(username);
+ boolean isAbTestOnly = abTest != null && abTest.contains("only");
+ boolean isTestLanguage = onlyTestLanguages.contains(lang.getShortCodeWithCountryAndVariant());
+ boolean isTestClient = onlyTestClients.contains(agent);
+
+ return (isTestUser || isAbTestOnly) && isTestLanguage && isTestClient;
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private boolean shouldApplyTestRules(Map<String, String> params, String agent, Language lang, List<String> abTest) { | |
| String username = params.getOrDefault("username", ""); | |
| return (onlyTestUsers.contains(username) || (abTest != null && abTest.contains("only"))) && | |
| onlyTestLanguages.contains(lang.getShortCodeWithCountryAndVariant()) && | |
| onlyTestClients.contains(agent); | |
| } | |
| private boolean shouldApplyTestRules(Map<String, String> params, String agent, Language lang, List<String> abTest) { | |
| String username = params.getOrDefault("username", ""); | |
| boolean isTestUser = onlyTestUsers.contains(username); | |
| boolean isAbTestOnly = abTest != null && abTest.contains("only"); | |
| boolean isTestLanguage = onlyTestLanguages.contains(lang.getShortCodeWithCountryAndVariant()); | |
| boolean isTestClient = onlyTestClients.contains(agent); | |
| return (isTestUser || isAbTestOnly) && isTestLanguage && isTestClient; | |
| } |
Summary by CodeRabbit