Skip to content

cache: add Size method to LRU cache with test updates #330

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2025
Merged

cache: add Size method to LRU cache with test updates #330

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2025
+15 −2

Conversation

@ffranr
Copy link
Contributor

@ffranr ffranr commented Nov 7, 2025 •
edited
Loading

This change lets us query the total byte size of all cache entries when capacity and size are measured in bytes.

Also, extend cache.Cache interface with Size() uint64 method sig.

Notes

@ffranr ffranr self-assigned this Nov 7, 2025
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

gemini-code-assist bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Summary of Changes

Hello @ffranr, 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 enhances the LRU cache implementation by introducing a public Size method. This method provides a safe and encapsulated way to query the aggregate size of all items within the cache, ensuring thread safety through appropriate locking mechanisms. The change also includes updates to existing unit tests to reflect the use of this new public API.

Highlights

  • New Size Method: A new public Size() method has been added to the LRU cache, allowing consumers to retrieve the total size of all elements currently stored in the cache. This method is thread-safe, utilizing a read lock.
  • Test Updates: Existing test cases in lru_test.go have been updated to use the newly introduced Size() method instead of directly accessing the internal c.size field, promoting proper encapsulation and API usage.
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 by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

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 pull request 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 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. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

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

  1. 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. ↩

gemini-code-assist[bot]
gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Nov 7, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a 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 introduces a new Size() method to the LRU cache, which correctly uses a read lock for thread-safe access to the cache's total size. The associated tests have been updated to use this new method instead of accessing the private size field directly, which is a great improvement for encapsulation. The implementation is clean and correct. As a potential follow-up, you might consider adding the Size() method to the cache.Cache interface to ensure consumers of the interface can also access this functionality.

@ffranr ffranr requested review from starius and yyforyongyu November 7, 2025 13:33
@ffranr ffranr force-pushed the wip/add-lru-cache-size-method branch from 16a8a04 to 3135a7d Compare November 7, 2025 13:37
@ffranr ffranr mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2025
Open
@starius starius mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2025
Open
starius
starius approved these changes Nov 7, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@starius starius left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! 💾

I added a more detailed test in #331

@ffranr ffranr force-pushed the wip/add-lru-cache-size-method branch from 3135a7d to 725ab58 Compare November 10, 2025 11:25
yyforyongyu
yyforyongyu approved these changes Nov 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@yyforyongyu yyforyongyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🛡️

Roasbeef
Roasbeef approved these changes Nov 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Roasbeef Roasbeef left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🪡

@Roasbeef Roasbeef merged commit 7444157 into master Nov 10, 2025
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@starius starius starius approved these changes

@Roasbeef Roasbeef Roasbeef approved these changes

@yyforyongyu yyforyongyu yyforyongyu approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist[bot] gemini-code-assist[bot] left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@ffranr ffranr

Labels

enhancement

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@ffranr @starius @Roasbeef @yyforyongyu