Find the absent when starting the execution #4248
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 (
|
jackzhhuang
force-pushed
the
sync-absent-check2
branch
from
325ca62 to
05c8d58
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
sync/src/tasks/block_sync_task.rs (1)
457-458: Add error context for better debugging.While the logic is correct, consider adding context to the error for better debugging:
- self.find_absent_ancestor(vec![block_header.clone()]).await?; + self.find_absent_ancestor(vec![block_header.clone()]).await.with_context(|| + format!("Failed to find absent ancestors for block {}", block_header.id()))?;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- sync/src/tasks/block_sync_task.rs (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
sync/src/tasks/block_sync_task.rs (1)
426-433: LGTM! Verify impact of return type change.The simplification of
find_absent_ancestorto returnResult<()>instead ofResult<u64>better reflects its purpose of ensuring completeness rather than counting absent blocks.Let's verify if any callers were depending on the count value:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search strategy to verify the impact of this change.
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response:
Return type change in
find_absent_ancestoris safeThe search results show that:
- The method is only called once within the same file
- The caller doesn't use the returned value, it only checks for errors using
?- No other usages were found in the codebase
- The old implementation with
Result<u64>return type is not found in the git history (via ast-grep)This confirms that changing the return type from
Result<u64>toResult<()>is a safe refactoring that better reflects the method's purpose of ensuring completeness rather than counting absent blocks.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for calls to find_absent_ancestor that use the returned value rg -A 5 "find_absent_ancestor.*\?" | rg "let.*=.*find_absent_ancestor"Length of output: 72
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all usages of find_absent_ancestor rg -B 2 -A 2 "find_absent_ancestor" # Also search for the method definition to understand its previous usage ast-grep --pattern 'async fn find_absent_ancestor($$$) -> Result<u64> { $$$ }'Length of output: 847
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
sync/src/tasks/block_sync_task.rs (2)
426-433: Consider adding debug logging for better observability.Adding debug logs when blocks are found/not found would help with troubleshooting sync issues.
async fn find_absent_ancestor(&self, mut block_headers: Vec<BlockHeader>) -> Result<()> { loop { let mut absent_blocks = vec![]; self.find_absent_parent_dag_blocks_for_blocks(block_headers, &mut absent_blocks)?; if absent_blocks.is_empty() { + debug!("[sync] No absent ancestor blocks found"); return Ok(()); } + debug!("[sync] Found {} absent ancestor blocks", absent_blocks.len()); block_headers = self.fetch_blocks(absent_blocks).await?; } }Also applies to: 457-459
426-433: Consider adding timeout protection.The recursive nature of
find_absent_ancestorcould potentially lead to long-running operations. Consider adding a timeout mechanism or maximum iteration count.async fn find_absent_ancestor(&self, mut block_headers: Vec<BlockHeader>) -> Result<()> { + const MAX_ITERATIONS: u32 = 100; // Adjust based on your needs + let mut iteration = 0; loop { + if iteration >= MAX_ITERATIONS { + return Err(anyhow::format_err!("Exceeded maximum iterations while finding absent ancestors")); + } + iteration += 1; let mut absent_blocks = vec![]; self.find_absent_parent_dag_blocks_for_blocks(block_headers, &mut absent_blocks)?; if absent_blocks.is_empty() { return Ok(()); } block_headers = self.fetch_blocks(absent_blocks).await?; } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- sync/src/tasks/block_sync_task.rs (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
sync/src/tasks/block_sync_task.rs (2)
426-433: LGTM: Return type simplification improves code clarity.The change from
Result<u64>toResult<()>simplifies the method by removing unused count tracking. The new implementation correctly maintains the core functionality of ensuring all ancestor blocks are present.
457-459: Verify error handling in the caller chain.The change to directly await
find_absent_ancestorwithout checking its return value aligns with the return type change. However, we should verify that all callers properly handle potential errors.✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to find the callers and error handling patterns.
Let me check the broader context of the error handling pattern in this file.
Let me check one more thing to understand the error handling pattern in the containing function.
Let me check one final thing to understand the error handling pattern in the containing function.
Based on the code analysis so far, I can make a determination about the error handling. The
find_absent_ancestorfunction returns aResult<()>and is properly awaited with the?operator in the caller chain. The error propagation is handled through theResulttype system, and errors will be propagated up the call stack.Error handling is properly implemented in the caller chain
The code shows:
find_absent_ancestorreturnsResult<()>- The call is properly awaited with
.await?which propagates any errors- The containing async block is wrapped in a
futthat returns aResult- The error handling follows Rust's standard error propagation patterns
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all callers of find_absent_ancestor to verify error handling ast-grep --pattern 'find_absent_ancestor($$$).await?' -l rustLength of output: 63
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the function definition and its usage rg -U "fn find_absent_ancestor|find_absent_ancestor\(" --type rust -A 5Length of output: 1042
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get more context around the usage to understand error handling pattern rg -U "find_absent_ancestor" --type rust -B 10 -A 10Length of output: 2996
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the broader context of the containing async block and function rg -U "let fut = async" --type rust -B 15 -A 20Length of output: 165305
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the broader context of the function containing find_absent_ancestor call rg -U "async fn process_dag_block" --type rust -B 5 -A 30Length of output: 59
Pull request type
Please check the type of change your PR introduces:
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Other information
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes