[ISSUE #2600]🐛QueryAssignmentProcessor request code not correct🔥#2603
[ISSUE #2600]🐛QueryAssignmentProcessor request code not correct🔥#2603rocketmq-rust-bot merged 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request updates the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client as Client
participant Broker as BrokerRequestProcessor
participant QAP as QueryAssignmentProcessor
participant SMP as SetMessageProcessor
Client->>Broker: Send Request (RequestCode)
alt QueryAssignment
Broker->>QAP: Process QueryAssignment request
QAP-->>Broker: Return QueryAssignment result
else SetMessageRequestMode
Broker->>SMP: Process SetMessageRequestMode
SMP-->>Broker: Return mode result
end
Broker-->>Client: Return response
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
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
Documentation and Community
|
rocketmq-rust-bot
requested review from
SpaceXCN,
TeslaRustor and
rocketmq-rust-bot
|
🔊@mxsm 🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉！ 💡CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥！ Note 🚨The code review suggestions from CodeRabbit are to be used as a reference only, and the PR submitter can decide whether to make changes based on their own judgment. Ultimately, the project management personnel will conduct the final code review💥. |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
AI review first
![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 (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor.rs (1)
191-195: Remove commented-out code.The commented-out code should be removed since an alternative implementation is already in place below it. This improves code maintainability by removing dead code.
- /*return self - .pop_message_processor - .process_request(channel, ctx, request_code, request) - .await - .map_err(Into::into);*/
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor.rs(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (9)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest, nightly)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest, stable)
- GitHub Check: build (macos-latest, nightly)
- GitHub Check: build (macos-latest, stable)
- GitHub Check: test
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, nightly)
- GitHub Check: auto-approve
- GitHub Check: build
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest, stable)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/processor.rs (1)
166-172: LGTM! The request code handling has been corrected.The change from
QueryConsumeQueuetoQueryAssignmentappears to be the correct fix for issue #2600. The error handling is consistent with other processors.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2603 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 28.60% 28.60%
=======================================
Files 515 515
Lines 74570 74570
=======================================
Hits 21334 21334
Misses 53236 53236 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
approved
3 participants
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #2600
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit