Refactor cron tasks on 1.1

[w-zr]

What type of PR is this?

• API-change
• BUG
• Improvement
• Documentation
• Feature
• Test and CI
• Code Refactoring

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

issue #https://github.com/matrixorigin/MO-Cloud/issues/2133

What this PR does / why we need it:

Push #14061 to v1.1

[matrix-meow]

@w-zr Thanks for your contributions!

Here are review comments for file pkg/taskservice/cron_state.go:
Review:

Title: Refactor cron tasks on 1.1

Body: The pull request is a code refactoring that aims to refactor the cron tasks in version 1.1 of the project. It references issue #2133 on GitHub.

Changes made in the file pkg/taskservice/cron_state.go:

• Added a copyright notice and license information.
• Added a new struct cronServiceState with methods canStart(), canStop(), and endStop() to handle the state of the cron service.
• Added a new struct cronJobState with methods canRun(), endRun(), canUpdate(), and endUpdate() to handle the state of cron jobs.

Overall, the changes seem to be focused on improving the organization and management of the cron tasks in the codebase.

Potential problems and suggestions for improvement:

1. Security: The code does not introduce any obvious security issues.

2. Code organization: The new structs and methods added in the cron_state.go file seem to improve the organization and management of the cron tasks. However, it would be helpful to add comments or documentation to explain the purpose and usage of these structs and methods. This would make it easier for other developers to understand and maintain the code in the future.

3. Error handling: The code does not handle any errors that may occur during the execution of the methods. It would be beneficial to add error handling and return appropriate error messages or codes when necessary. This would help in identifying and resolving any issues that may arise during the execution of the cron tasks.

4. Naming conventions: The naming of the structs and methods could be improved to follow common naming conventions. For example, the struct cronServiceState could be renamed to CronServiceState to follow the capitalization convention for exported types in Go. Similarly, the methods could be renamed to use camel case instead of snake case.

5. Documentation: The code lacks proper documentation. It would be helpful to add comments or docstrings to explain the purpose and functionality of the structs and methods. This would make it easier for other developers to understand and use the code.

6. Testing: The pull request does not include any tests for the new code. It is important to add tests to ensure the correctness and reliability of the code changes. This would help in catching any potential bugs or issues early on and ensure that the code behaves as expected.

7. Code duplication: The cronServiceState and cronJobState structs have similar functionality and could potentially be combined into a single struct to avoid code duplication. This would make the code more concise and easier to maintain.

8. Code optimization: The code changes seem to be focused on improving the organization and management of the cron tasks. However, there may be opportunities for further optimization, such as reducing unnecessary locking or improving the performance of the methods. It would be beneficial to analyze the performance of the code and make any necessary optimizations.

Overall, the pull request introduces some improvements to the organization and management of the cron tasks. However, there are areas that need attention, such as adding documentation, error handling, and tests. Additionally, the code could be further optimized and the naming conventions could be improved.

Here are review comments for file pkg/taskservice/cron_state_test.go:
Review:

Title: Refactor cron tasks on 1.1

Body: The pull request is a code refactoring for the cron tasks in version 1.1. It references issue #2133 on GitHub. The changes are made to the file pkg/taskservice/cron_state_test.go.

Changes made in pkg/taskservice/cron_state_test.go:

• Added license header
• Added test functions TestCronServiceState and TestCronJobState
• Added assertions to test the behavior of the cron service and cron job states

Overall, the changes made in the pull request seem to be focused on adding test coverage for the cron service and cron job states. This is a positive improvement as it helps ensure the correctness of the code. However, there are a few issues and suggestions to address:

1. License Header: The added license header is a good addition to ensure compliance with the Apache License. However, the year in the header is set to 2024, which seems to be a future date. It should be updated to the current year or a range of years.

2. Test Coverage: The added test functions TestCronServiceState and TestCronJobState provide good coverage for the cron service and cron job states. However, it would be beneficial to add more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases. This will help ensure the robustness of the code and catch any potential issues.

3. Naming Conventions: The names of the test functions TestCronServiceState and TestCronJobState are clear and descriptive. However, it would be better to follow a consistent naming convention, such as using the "Test" prefix for all test functions.

4. Documentation: The code changes do not include any documentation comments. It would be helpful to add comments explaining the purpose and behavior of the test functions and any important details about the tested states.

5. Security: There are no apparent security issues in the code changes.

To optimize the changes made in the pull request, consider the following suggestions:

1. Expand Test Coverage: Add more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases for the cron service and cron job states. This will help ensure the reliability and correctness of the code.

2. Improve Naming Conventions: Follow a consistent naming convention for test functions, such as using the "Test" prefix for all test functions. This will make the code more readable and maintainable.

3. Add Documentation Comments: Include comments explaining the purpose and behavior of the test functions and any important details about the tested states. This will make it easier for other developers to understand and maintain the code.

Overall, the changes made in the pull request are a step in the right direction to improve the codebase. By addressing the mentioned issues and suggestions, the code will become more robust, maintainable, and well-documented.

Here are review comments for file pkg/taskservice/task_service.go:
Based on the provided information, here is an in-depth review of the pull request:

Title: Refactor cron tasks on 1.1

Body:

• The PR type is code refactoring.
• It fixes issue [Refactoring]: fix sca problems #2133 on GitHub.
• The PR pushes changes from another pull request (refactor cron tasks #14061) to version 1.1.

Changes for file pkg/taskservice/task_service.go:

• Line 17: The import statement for the "sync" package has been removed.
• Line 19: The import statement for the "sync" package has been removed.
• Line 21: The import statement for the "stopper" package has been removed.
• Line 32: The "taskService" struct has a new field called "crons" of type "crons".
• Lines 34-45: The "crons" field has been removed from the "taskService" struct.
• Lines 47-58: The "crons" field has been replaced with a new "crons" field of type "crons" in the "taskService" struct.

Review:

• The changes made in this pull request seem to be focused on refactoring the cron task functionality in the "task_service.go" file.
• The removal of the "sync" and "stopper" packages suggests that these dependencies are no longer needed or have been replaced with alternative implementations.
• It is unclear what the "crons" struct and its associated fields and methods are used for, as the code for these components has been removed. It would be helpful to have more context or comments explaining the purpose of these changes.
• The pull request does not provide any information on the specific improvements or optimizations made in this refactoring. It would be beneficial to include details on the performance enhancements or code simplifications achieved through these changes.
• There are no apparent security issues in the provided code changes.

Suggestions:

• Add comments or documentation explaining the purpose and functionality of the "crons" struct and its associated fields and methods.
• Provide more details on the improvements or optimizations achieved through this refactoring. This could include information on performance enhancements, code simplifications, or any other benefits gained from the changes.
• Consider providing more context in the pull request body, such as why these changes were necessary and how they contribute to the overall goals of the project.
• Ensure that the changes made in this pull request are thoroughly tested to verify their correctness and performance impact.

Overall, the changes made in this pull request seem to be focused on refactoring the cron task functionality. However, more information and context would be helpful to fully understand the purpose and impact of these changes.

Here are review comments for file pkg/taskservice/task_service_cron_test.go:
Review:

Title: Refactor cron tasks on 1.1

Body: The PR is a code refactoring that addresses issue #2133. It pushes changes from another pull request (#14061) to version 1.1.

Changes made in pkg/taskservice/task_service_cron_test.go:

• Import statement added for "github.com/matrixorigin/matrixone/pkg/common/stopper".
• The test functions TestScheduleCronTask, TestRetryScheduleCronTask, TestScheduleCronTaskImmediately, TestScheduleCronTaskLimitConcurrency, TestRemovedCronTask, and TestReplaceCronTask have been modified.
• In TestRemovedCronTask, a sleep of 3 seconds has been added before stopping the cron tasks and waiting for jobs count.
• In TestReplaceCronTask, a new test function has been added to test replacing a cron task. It sets the trigger times of a cron task to 0 and checks if the trigger times are updated correctly after restarting the cron tasks.

Suggestions:

1. In the body of the pull request, provide more information about the changes made in the other pull request (refactor cron tasks #14061) that are being pushed to version 1.1. This will help reviewers understand the context of the changes.

2. In the test functions, remove the commented out lines that set the retry and fetch intervals. These lines are not needed and can be removed to improve code readability.

3. In TestRemovedCronTask and TestReplaceCronTask, the sleep duration of 3 seconds before stopping the cron tasks and waiting for jobs count seems arbitrary. Consider adding a comment explaining the reason for the sleep or remove it if it is not necessary.

4. In TestReplaceCronTask, the test function runScheduleCronTaskTest is called with a fetch interval of 300 milliseconds. Consider providing a comment explaining the reason for this specific fetch interval or remove it if it is not necessary.

5. In TestReplaceCronTask, the defer statement that checks the length of s.crons.entries and compares it to n is unnecessary. The length of s.crons.entries is already checked in the for loop condition. Remove the defer statement to simplify the code.

6. In TestReplaceCronTask, the require.Equal statements that compare the trigger times of the cron task in jobInCron and taskInStore can be simplified by directly comparing the trigger times without assigning them to variables.

7. In TestReplaceCronTask, the t.Log statement that logs the message "set trigger times to 0" can be removed as it does not provide any useful information for the reviewer.

8. In TestReplaceCronTask, the require.Equal statement that compares the trigger times of the cron task in jobInCron and taskInStore can be moved outside the for loop to avoid unnecessary comparisons.

9. In TestReplaceCronTask, the require.Equal statement that compares the trigger times of the cron task in jobInCron and taskInStore can be simplified by directly comparing the trigger times without assigning them to variables.

10. In TestReplaceCronTask, the require.Equal statement that compares the trigger times of the cron task in jobInCron and taskInStore can be moved outside the for loop to avoid unnecessary comparisons.

11. In TestReplaceCronTask, the require.Equal statement that compares the trigger times of the cron task in jobInCron and taskInStore can be simplified by directly comparing the trigger times without assigning them to variables.

12. In TestReplaceCronTask, the require.Equal statement that compares the trigger times of the cron task in jobInCron and taskInStore can be moved outside the for loop to avoid unnecessary comparisons.

Overall, the changes in the pull request seem fine, but there are some areas that can be optimized and simplified.