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.

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

Org-wide linter #2943

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024
Merged

Org-wide linter #2943

merged 4 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

End-rey
Copy link
Contributor

@End-rey End-rey commented Sep 19, 2024

Closes #2940.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 19, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 28.96552% with 206 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 23.47%. Comparing base (7365c7c) to head (3ebb2d8).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/services/object/util/chain.go 0.00% 18 Missing ⚠️
cmd/neofs-cli/modules/storagegroup/put.go 0.00% 16 Missing ⚠️
cmd/neofs-cli/modules/object/head.go 0.00% 11 Missing ⚠️
pkg/core/object/fmt.go 40.00% 6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
cmd/neofs-lens/internal/printers.go 0.00% 8 Missing ⚠️
cmd/neofs-cli/modules/storagegroup/get.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
cmd/neofs-cli/modules/util/acl.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
pkg/services/object/put/local.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
pkg/services/object/split/verify.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
pkg/services/object/acl/acl.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
... and 68 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2943      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   23.49%   23.47%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         776      776              
  Lines       46594    46550      -44     
==========================================
- Hits        10949    10929      -20     
+ Misses      34780    34756      -24     
  Partials      865      865              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@End-rey End-rey marked this pull request as draft September 19, 2024 17:10
pkg/local_object_storage/shard/metrics_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/neofs-adm/internal/modules/config/config_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/metabase/delete_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/metabase/exists_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/pilorama/forest_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/shard/shutdown_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/services/control/service_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/local_object_storage/pilorama/forest_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@End-rey End-rey mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2024
roman-khimov added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2024
@End-rey End-rey force-pushed the 2940-adapt-org-wide-linter branch 2 times, most recently from 921ac38 to 6af8199 Compare September 25, 2024 09:23
@End-rey
Copy link
Contributor Author

End-rey commented Sep 25, 2024

@roman-khimov @carpawell I don't know what to do with object.SplitInfo.SetSplitID and storagegroup.StorageGroup.ExpirationEpoch.
When I try to use object.SplitInfo.SetFirstPart some tests fail, for example:

Error Trace:	~/neofs-node/pkg/services/object/get/get_test.go:821
        	Error:      	Should be in error chain:
        	            	expected: "status: code = 2049 message = object not found"
        	            	in chain: 
        	Test:       	TestGetRemoteSmall/VIRTUAL/linking/get_chain_element_failure
Error Trace:	~/neofs-node/pkg/services/object/get/get_test.go:903
        	Error:      	Not equal: 
        	            	expected: &object.Object{objectID:(*refs.ObjectID)(0xc0000134a0), idSig:(*refs.Signature)(nil), header:(*object.Header)(0xc000273f10), payload:[]uint8{0x70, 0x97, 0x21, 0x3, 0xcd, 0x81, 0x40, 0xe, 0x8c, 0x56, 0x6a, 0x48, 0xee, 0x75, 0xc3, 0xd7, 0x3a, 0x41, 0x8, 0xa2}}
        	            	actual  : &object.Object{objectID:(*refs.ObjectID)(0xc0000134a0), idSig:(*refs.Signature)(nil), header:(*object.Header)(0xc000273f10), payload:[]uint8(nil)}
        	            	
        	            	Diff:
        	            	--- Expected
        	            	+++ Actual
        	            	@@ -35,6 +35,3 @@
        	            	  }),
        	            	- payload: ([]uint8) (len=20) {
        	            	-  00000000  70 97 21 03 cd 81 40 0e  8c 56 6a 48 ee 75 c3 d7  |[email protected]..|
        	            	-  00000010  3a 41 08 a2                                       |:A..|
        	            	- }
        	            	+ payload: ([]uint8) <nil>
        	            	 })
        	Test:       	TestGetRemoteSmall/VIRTUAL/linking/OK
Error Trace:	~/neofs-node/pkg/services/object/get/get_test.go:1123
        	Error:      	Not equal: 
        	            	expected: []byte{0xcd, 0xeb, 0x33, 0x3a, 0xda, 0xab}
        	            	actual  : []byte(nil)
        	            	
        	            	Diff:
        	            	--- Expected
        	            	+++ Actual
        	            	@@ -1,4 +1,2 @@
        	            	-([]uint8) (len=6) {
        	            	- 00000000  cd eb 33 3a da ab                                 |..3:..|
        	            	-}
        	            	+([]uint8) <nil>
        	            	 
        	Test:       	TestGetRemoteSmall/VIRTUAL/right_child/OK

For storagegroup.StorageGroup.ExpirationEpoch the code used functions from the sdk, and this field is necessary for the storagegroup.StorageGroup object.

@roman-khimov
Copy link
Member

There are two protocol changes here:

  • split v1/v2, v1 is deprecated, but we still support it, so maybe the test is relevant as is, v2 is very different in its structure
  • SG/generic expiration epoch, generic one should be used

First of all, let's check if we want a compatibility test (in which case deprecated features are perfectly fine) or something different.

@carpawell
Copy link
Member

@End-rey

I don't know what to do with object.SplitInfo.SetSplitID

We still have to support "old" objects with v1 scheme. Deprecations are for client code mostly. All the places with it in the current code are server-side only (and tests). You can just add nolint, there should not be any updates and you should not try to use v2 objects scheme for objects that were created when v2 did not even exist.

For storagegroup.StorageGroup.ExpirationEpoch the code used functions from the SDK

I guess it may be the time when we can drop expiration from SG's body completely (when a new SG is created in cli, it should be just an expiration attribute for sure). Not sure if we can say "there will not be old SGs ever" and do not expect expiration in SG at all @roman-khimov. Mb we need to check if there are any old SGs currently on our nodes.

this field is necessary for the storagegroup.StorageGroup object

Can you explain, please?

@End-rey
Copy link
Contributor Author

End-rey commented Oct 1, 2024

@carpawell

Can you explain, please?

I say about, for example, this func storagegroup.WriteToObject, but now I see that, if there is no expiration epoch field, it is set to zero.

But here, I can't easily get object that carries SG, so I have to leave it as it is?

@End-rey End-rey force-pushed the 2940-adapt-org-wide-linter branch 2 times, most recently from 3e7856a to 7a048fe Compare October 1, 2024 13:22
@End-rey End-rey marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2024 15:24
@carpawell
Copy link
Member

carpawell commented Oct 1, 2024

But here, I can't easily get object that carries SG, so I have to leave it as it is?

No, this code will stop working properly if we meet a new one SG then. I think you should either extend the interface with expiration epoch (uint64) or just return a raw object.Object and read its expiration (both ways if we still support both SG schemes @roman-khimov) in every place where this interface is used.

UPD: reread the code, ReadFromObject looks OK, do we really need to deprecate expiration getters if it is read from object's attributes, @cthulhu-rider? It can be considered as a helper struct that is read from objects only and that includes all the things we need to work with SGs (and any SG still can expire).

Copy link
Contributor

@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

great job! overall LGTM

i'll leave 2 suggestions here:

  1. there are a lot of .Encode -> copy() changes. For most of them (mb all) we can get rid of the buffer and just use id[:]. The only risky layer could be BoltDB, be careful there
  2. we now have cid.Size, oid.Size and user.IDSize consts. I suggest u to search by sha256.Size, 32 and 25 entries across repo, and add commit with const replacement. This ofc can be done in the next PR. P.S. note that some sha256.Size entries can be unrelated!

ok := len(test.jsonRecord) > 0
require.Equal(t, ok, err == nil, err)
if ok {
expectedRecord := eacl.NewRecord()
expectedRecord := eacl.ConstructRecord(eacl.ActionUnspecified, eacl.OperationUnspecified, nil, eacl.Filter{})
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for decoding its enough to have

Suggested change
expectedRecord := eacl.ConstructRecord(eacl.ActionUnspecified, eacl.OperationUnspecified, nil, eacl.Filter{})
var expectedRecord eacl.Record

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i was in his place, docs say "Record should be created using one of the constructors." so IMO it is either wrong doc or @End-rey was right

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should not must

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here is the decoding from json, which contains the correct fields for record, so I agree that declared via var will be enough.

cmd/neofs-cli/modules/acl/extended/create_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/neofs-cli/modules/control/synchronize_tree.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/neofs-cli/modules/storagegroup/get.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
attrs[index].SetValue(expAttrValue)
}

obj.SetAttributes(attrs...)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so many lines to set one value. nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go#630

pkg/services/object/acl/eacl/v2/eacl_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/services/object/get/assembly_v2.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/services/object/search/search_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/services/object/split/verify.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/services/tree/signature.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@carpawell carpawell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some places do not need to have a dedicated variable now, quite a valuable change IMO, this is kinda why we did SDK refactoring, but not critical. Waiting for the full test run.

addr.Object().Encode(key[cidSize:])
cnr := addr.Container()
obj := addr.Object()
copy(key[copy(key, cnr[:]):], obj[:])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not sure it is more readable now. moreover copy is not needed at all, addr is a copy already

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So make for more readability this?

Suggested change
copy(key[copy(key, cnr[:]):], obj[:])
n := copy(key, cnr[:])
copy(key[n:], obj[:])

And don't understand about copy, how to concat 2 slices without copy and with the same performance?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is cosmetic. to me something like

key = append(key[:0], cnr[:]...)
key = append(key, obj[:]...)

is more preferable, i am scared of brackets, [:]):] confuses me. append(append(key[:0], cnr[:]...), cnr[:]...) in one line if needed

but ok, i benched and now know that your way is faster so ok

And don't understand about copy

i was wrong, i thought that copy here is for saving the original addr untouched (cid and oid were not arrays forever, some time ago there were slices in them), but it is not

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So make for more readability this?

but stil my answer is yes. 3 closing brackets in 4 symbols is too much for me

cnr, _ := obj.ContainerID()
id, _ := obj.ID()
cnr := obj.GetContainerID()
id := obj.GetID()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not needed var now

@carpawell
Copy link
Member

Use:
- `eacl.Target.RawSubjects` instead of `eacl.Target.BinaryKeys`.
- `eacl.NewTargetByRole` with `eacl.Target.SetRawSubjects` or
`eacl.NewTargetByAccounts` with `user.NewFromECDSAPublicKey` for targets with
public keys.
- `eacl.ConstructTable` instead of `eacl.NewTable`.
- `eacl.ConstructRecord` instead of `eacl.NewRecord`.
- `*.Get*ID` instead of `*.*ID`.
- `ID.IsZero()` to check if ID is set.
- comparing with == instead of `ID.Equals`.
- `cid.NewFromMarshalledContainer(cnr.Marshal())` instead of.
`cid.ID.CalculateID`.
- `user.NewFromECDSAPublicKey` instead of `user.ResolveFromECDSAPublicKey`.
- direct assign or copy instead of `ID.Encode`.
- direct assign instead of `ID.SetSHA256`.
- use `rand.Read` from `crypto/rand`.
- use expiration epoch of storage group from attribute in header of
the object carrying this storage group.
- use `oidtest.ID` and `oidtest.IDs` to generate IDs for tests.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <[email protected]>
- `unused`
- `errorlint: non-wrapping format verb for fmt.Errorf. Use `%w` to format
errors`
- `variable collides with imported package name`

Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <[email protected]>
Since we get an expiration option from the object that carries the storage
group, and if it's not set we get `object.ErrNoExpiration`, now we print
information about it.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <[email protected]>
@roman-khimov roman-khimov merged commit 624f636 into master Oct 7, 2024
21 checks passed
@roman-khimov roman-khimov deleted the 2940-adapt-org-wide-linter branch October 7, 2024 20:01
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.

Adapt org-wide linter
4 participants