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

Fixing requestId generator bug in PinotBrokerDebug Resource #13716

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 30, 2024

Conversation

xiangfu0
Copy link
Contributor

The issue here is that _requestIdGenerator is local to the HttpResource and will be created for every http request, so the requestId is always 0.

@xiangfu0 xiangfu0 force-pushed the routing-table-api branch from 464b7ab to a137615 Compare July 30, 2024 17:46
@xiangfu0 xiangfu0 force-pushed the routing-table-api branch from a137615 to 7c50669 Compare July 30, 2024 18:03
Copy link
Contributor

@mayankshriv mayankshriv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for fixing this. Would be great to add a test to ensure that the api doesn't always return the exact same routing table across calls.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jul 30, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 61.99%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (7c50669).
Report is 811 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
...e/pinot/broker/api/resources/PinotBrokerDebug.java 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #13716      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   61.99%   +0.24%     
+ Complexity      207      198       -9     
============================================
  Files          2436     2554     +118     
  Lines        133233   140661    +7428     
  Branches      20636    21880    +1244     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    87205    +4931     
- Misses        44911    46824    +1913     
- Partials       6048     6632     +584     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration2 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11 61.94% <0.00%> (+0.23%) ⬆️
java-21 61.89% <0.00%> (+0.26%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-false 61.98% <0.00%> (+0.23%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true 61.84% <0.00%> (+34.12%) ⬆️
temurin 61.99% <0.00%> (+0.24%) ⬆️
unittests 61.99% <0.00%> (+0.24%) ⬆️
unittests1 46.44% <ø> (-0.45%) ⬇️
unittests2 27.77% <0.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

@xiangfu0 xiangfu0 merged commit 95a526e into apache:master Jul 30, 2024
19 of 20 checks passed
@xiangfu0 xiangfu0 deleted the routing-table-api branch July 30, 2024 20:32
ege-st pushed a commit to ege-st/pinot that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2024
@Jackie-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Are we going to create a new class for each http request? That is surprising

suddendust pushed a commit to suddendust/incubator-pinot that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
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.

6 participants