feat: Pika Quality #3194
feat: Pika Quality #3194
Conversation
WalkthroughThis PR introduces a new integration test file for network stability using Telnet interactions against a server, and extends existing server tests with cache configuration validation and admin command loading/execution tests. Note that admin command tests appear duplicated in the server test file. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
tests/integration/network_stability_test.go (2)
11-35: Consider verifying the server's response to empty commands.The test sends an empty command (
\n) but doesn't verify what response, if any, the server returns for it. The subsequent read only validates that PING and ECHO work correctly. To thoroughly test the core dump fix, consider:
- Reading the response after the empty command to confirm the server doesn't crash or send error responses
- Verifying the server remains responsive after processing empty input
Example enhancement:
_, err = conn.Write([]byte("\n")) Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) + +// Read response to empty command (may be empty or error) +buf := make([]byte, 1024) +conn.SetReadDeadline(time.Now().Add(100 * time.Millisecond)) +_, _ = conn.Read(buf) +conn.SetReadDeadline(time.Time{}) _, err = conn.Write([]byte("*1\r\n$4\r\nPING\r\n")) Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) -buf := make([]byte, 1024) n, err := conn.Read(buf)
37-55: Strengthen validation of multiple empty command handling.Similar to the first test, this validates that PING works after empty commands but doesn't verify the server's actual handling of the empty commands themselves. Consider adding assertions to confirm:
- The server doesn't send unexpected responses to the empty commands
- The connection remains in a valid state throughout
Also note the inconsistency: this test uses
\r\nwhile the first test uses\n. If both represent empty commands in the protocol, consider standardizing on one or explicitly testing both variants.tests/integration/server_test.go (2)
438-461: Consider restoring original configuration values after the test.The test modifies cache configuration parameters but doesn't restore them to their original values. While the
BeforeEachhook flushes the database, configuration changes persist across tests and might affect subsequent test execution.Consider capturing and restoring the original values:
It("should handle cache size configurations correctly", func() { configGet := client.ConfigGet(ctx, "cache-value-item-max-size") Expect(configGet.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) Expect(configGet.Val()).To(HaveKey("cache-value-item-max-size")) + originalCacheValue := configGet.Val()["cache-value-item-max-size"] configGet2 := client.ConfigGet(ctx, "max-key-size-in-cache") Expect(configGet2.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) Expect(configGet2.Val()).To(HaveKey("max-key-size-in-cache")) + originalMaxKey := configGet2.Val()["max-key-size-in-cache"] + defer func() { + client.ConfigSet(ctx, "cache-value-item-max-size", originalCacheValue) + client.ConfigSet(ctx, "max-key-size-in-cache", originalMaxKey) + }() configSet1 := client.ConfigSet(ctx, "cache-value-item-max-size", "1024")
840-843: Test provides minimal validation of thread pool behavior.While this test confirms the auth command executes and returns an error for an invalid password, it doesn't actually verify that the command is processed in the admin thread pool specifically. The test would pass as long as auth is functional, regardless of which thread pool handles it.
If verifying thread pool assignment is critical, consider:
- Adding instrumentation or logging that can be inspected to confirm thread pool usage
- Testing under concurrent load to expose thread pool assignment issues
- Checking server metrics or debug endpoints that expose thread pool statistics
However, if the goal is simply to ensure auth commands work correctly after configuration changes, this test is sufficient.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
tests/integration/network_stability_test.go(1 hunks)tests/integration/server_test.go(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code graph analysis (2)
tests/integration/network_stability_test.go (1)
tests/integration/options.go (1)
SINGLEADDR(13-13)
tests/integration/server_test.go (1)
src/pika_admin.cc (4)
ConfigGet(1583-2314)ConfigGet(1583-1583)ConfigSet(2317-3098)ConfigSet(2317-2317)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (4)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
- GitHub Check: build_on_ubuntu
- GitHub Check: build_on_macos
- GitHub Check: build_on_centos
🔇 Additional comments (1)
tests/integration/server_test.go (1)
823-837: LGTM with a note about AI summary inconsistency.The test appropriately verifies that the
admin-cmd-listconfiguration is loaded correctly and contains the expected commands.Note: The AI-generated summary mentions "Admin command tests appear duplicated," but only one instance is visible in the provided code. This may be a summary error or refer to content outside the diff scope.
1 participant
#3043 #3047
这两处修复都涉及到了参数cache-value-item-max-size 和 max-key-size-in-cache
添加测试点：
● 验证配置项的存在性：通过ConfigGet命令确认cache-value-item-max-size 和max-key-size-in-cache 配置项存在
● 验证配置可以被设置：通过ConfigSet命令尝试设置配置值
#3048
用例验证配置项 admin-cmd-list 中是否包含 "auth" 命令，确保配置被正确设置。
#3095
测试了两种情况：
● 使用原始 TCP 连接来模拟 telnet 客户端行为
● 验证服务器不会崩溃并能继续处理正常命令
测试结果如下：
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.