-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 280
fix: Don't run shadow ListObjects query for request weight=∞ #2572
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
fix: Don't run shadow ListObjects query for request weight=∞ #2572
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes update the handling of the Changes
Estimated code review effort2 (~15 minutes) Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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 (
|
0f6c48c
to
5941481
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2572 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.36% 90.47% +0.12%
==========================================
Files 140 140
Lines 19661 19685 +24
==========================================
+ Hits 17765 17809 +44
+ Misses 1444 1429 -15
+ Partials 452 447 -5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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.
LGTM
But is there a way to avoid running the WG query if we know that its in shadow mode and we know we can't use WG and we fallback instead?
Description
What problem is being solved?
Right now the shadow list objects query is configured to run on a user-defined % of listObjects requests. However, the new ReverseExpand code, which the shadow resolver is designed to test, falls back to the current implementation (non-weighted) when it receives queries of infinite weight. That means that for some models, the shadow query is just re-running the exact same query as the main list objects query; doing duplicate work and providing no value.
How is it being solved?
Added some additional metadata to prevent running an additional shadow query when it isn't meaningful.
What changes are made to solve it?
If the query is going to skip the weighted graph, we will no longer run the shadow query on it.
Summary by CodeRabbit