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

feat(lvol): add lvol detach parent API #186

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 25, 2024
Merged

Conversation

shuo-wu
Copy link
Collaborator

@shuo-wu shuo-wu commented Dec 25, 2024

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Issue longhorn/longhorn#9922

What this PR does / why we need it:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Additional documentation or context

Longhorn 9922

Signed-off-by: Damiano Cipriani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shuo Wu <[email protected]>
@shuo-wu shuo-wu requested a review from derekbit December 25, 2024 06:59
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 25, 2024

Walkthrough

This pull request introduces functionality to detach a logical volume (lvol) from its parent without modifying the volume's data. The changes span multiple files, including Dockerfile.dapper, app/cmd/basic/bdev_lvol.go, pkg/spdk/client/basic.go, and pkg/spdk/types/lvol.go. The primary modification is adding a new method to decouple a logical volume from its parent, which is crucial for the Longhorn v2 data engine's fast rebuilding feature.

Changes

File Change Summary
Dockerfile.dapper Updated SPDK commit ID from 002cd0679259c4e4b782d9540441a46e1228d484 to a7421a6e59f1d099294af6f65d73ebec4afebfc5
app/cmd/basic/bdev_lvol.go Added new command BdevLvolDetachParentCmd and action function bdevLvolDetachParent for detaching lvol from parent
pkg/spdk/client/basic.go Introduced new method BdevLvolDetachParent to handle lvol parent detachment
pkg/spdk/types/lvol.go Added new type BdevLvolDetachParentRequest with Name field

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Decouple lvol without changing data [#9922]
Add option to skip data change during decoupling Implementation details suggest this, but full confirmation requires deeper review

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • innobead
  • derekbit

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
app/cmd/basic/bdev_lvol.go (1)

30-30: Enhance subcommand grouping for maintainability.
Adding new subcommands continuously could make this list overwhelming. Consider grouping related subcommands or using a subcommand-based CLI design pattern to improve maintainability.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a58a028 and 8b949ac.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • Dockerfile.dapper (1 hunks)
  • app/cmd/basic/bdev_lvol.go (2 hunks)
  • pkg/spdk/client/basic.go (1 hunks)
  • pkg/spdk/types/lvol.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
pkg/spdk/types/lvol.go (1)

127-130: Consider unit tests for new request struct.
The added request struct looks straightforward, but ensuring comprehensive test coverage for the new BdevLvolDetachParentRequest will help maintain reliability and prevent regressions.

app/cmd/basic/bdev_lvol.go (2)

351-371: Command naming is consistent.
The choice of detach subcommand is descriptive and consistent with other commands in the file.


373-390: Validate input preconditions.
Ensuring the parent is a “standard snapshot” is critical. Consider adding a quick pre-check or a user-friendly warning if the target lvol does not meet the standard snapshot requirement.

pkg/spdk/client/basic.go (1)

397-413: Great addition of the detach function.
This new method is a logical counterpart to BdevLvolDecoupleParent. Good job clarifying that no clusters are copied and that the parent must be a standard snapshot.

Dockerfile.dapper (1)

20-20: Check stability of the new SPDK commit.
Updating SPDK_COMMIT_ID is acceptable, but confirm that this newer commit remains stable for operations related to detaching parents, and that no breaking changes arise from dependencies in other modules.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 25, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 43 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 22.57%. Comparing base (a58a028) to head (8b949ac).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
app/cmd/basic/bdev_lvol.go 0.00% 33 Missing ⚠️
pkg/spdk/client/basic.go 0.00% 10 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #186      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   22.61%   22.57%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        4949     4992      +43     
==========================================
+ Hits         1119     1127       +8     
- Misses       3652     3690      +38     
+ Partials      178      175       -3     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 22.57% <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.

@derekbit derekbit merged commit e50a23d into longhorn:main Dec 25, 2024
7 of 9 checks passed
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.

3 participants