-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 458
test(rapid appends): validate content appended in non-append mode available on GCS only after close() #3530
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
base: ft-appends-must-fail-when-another-append-in-progress
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Summary of Changes
Hello @anushka567, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request introduces a new integration test to ensure the correct eventual consistency behavior for unfinalized objects in Google Cloud Storage. The test validates that data written to such objects in a non-append mode is only made durable and visible on GCS after the file stream is closed, aligning with expected cloud storage semantics.
Highlights
- New Integration Test: I've added a new integration test,
TestContentAppendedInNonAppendModeNotVisibleTillClose
, to validate the behavior of content visibility for unfinalized objects in Google Cloud Storage (GCS). - Unfinalized Object Content Visibility: This test specifically verifies that when content is appended to an unfinalized object using a non-append mode write (e.g.,
WriteAt
afteros.OpenFile
withO_WRONLY|O_DIRECT
), the newly written data is not immediately visible on GCS until the file handle is explicitly closed. - Test Status: The newly introduced test is currently skipped. This is a temporary measure until
CreateObject()
support for unfinalized objects is fully implemented and available.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request adds a new integration test to validate that content written to a file in non-append mode is only visible on GCS after the file handle is closed. There is a resource leak with a *storage.Writer
that needs to be addressed, and the file handle cleanup could be made more robust to prevent leaks on test failure.
tools/integration_tests/unfinalized_appends/unfinalized_appends_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tools/integration_tests/unfinalized_appends/unfinalized_appends_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
0ce758a
to
cc44961
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## ft-appends-must-fail-when-another-append-in-progress #3530 +/- ##
=======================================================================================
Coverage ? 78.82%
=======================================================================================
Files ? 140
Lines ? 18600
Branches ? 0
=======================================================================================
Hits ? 14662
Misses ? 3447
Partials ? 491
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
cc44961
to
0b421c5
Compare
f26c312
to
4cf2d1e
Compare
0b421c5
to
7a1f768
Compare
7a1f768
to
2ee2a23
Compare
Description
This functional test covers the scenario where an unfinalized object is opened in a non-append mode to be written to. According to the heuristics that GCSFuse has in place, such a scenario does not trigger the buffered writes flow, instead falling back to the legacy path, hence, the appends that are done to the unfinalized object will not be visible in GCS in real time.
The test includes:
NOTE : To unskip the test once support for CreateObject() on unfinalized object is in place.
Link to the issue in case of a bug fix.
b/432130679
Testing details
Any backward incompatible change? If so, please explain.