test gemini code assist with random changes #4
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @zakisk, 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!
I've implemented a series of enhancements to the GitHub provider to improve its observability, reliability, and debugging capabilities. The primary goal is to provide better insights into GitHub API usage, track performance metrics, and proactively manage rate limits. These changes will help in identifying bottlenecks, understanding system behavior under load, and ensuring a more stable integration with GitHub.
Highlights
- Enhanced GitHub API Performance Monitoring: I've introduced comprehensive performance monitoring and rate limit tracking for GitHub API interactions. This includes new structs to hold metrics, functions to record API call durations, track success/failure rates, and parse GitHub's rate limit headers. This data is logged to provide better visibility into the provider's health and API usage.
- New GitHub Provider Health Check: I've added a new
HealthCheckmethod to the GitHub provider, allowing for a quick verification of connectivity and authentication to the GitHub API. This improves the ability to diagnose issues related to the GitHub integration. - Improved Logging and Input Validation: I've significantly improved the logging across key GitHub provider functions like
SetClientandGetTektonDir. This includes more detailed debug and info logs, input validation, and security audit logs, which will greatly assist in debugging and understanding the flow of operations. - Integrated API Call Tracking: API call tracking has been integrated into critical operations within the GitHub provider, such as client setup and fetching repository content. This allows for granular performance data collection on specific API calls, contributing to a more robust monitoring system.
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 in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| 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 issue 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 or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
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
-
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 help |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces performance and API usage metrics for the GitHub provider, which is a valuable addition for observability. My review focuses on ensuring the new metrics implementation is robust and free of potential runtime errors. I've identified a few critical issues, such as potential panics from division-by-zero errors, and some areas for improvement in terms of code structure and maintainability. The provided suggestions aim to address these points to make the new feature more reliable.
pkg/provider/github/github.go
Outdated
| percentage := float64(remaining) / float64(limit) * 100 | ||
| if percentage < 10 { | ||
| v.Logger.Warnf("GitHub API rate limit critically low: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | ||
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | ||
| } else if percentage < 25 { | ||
| v.Logger.Infof("GitHub API rate limit getting low: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | ||
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | ||
| } else { | ||
| v.Logger.Debugf("GitHub API rate limit status: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | ||
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a potential for a division-by-zero panic here if limit is 0. While the GitHub API is expected to return a non-zero limit, it's safer to add a guard to prevent the application from crashing.
| percentage := float64(remaining) / float64(limit) * 100 | |
| if percentage < 10 { | |
| v.Logger.Warnf("GitHub API rate limit critically low: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | |
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | |
| } else if percentage < 25 { | |
| v.Logger.Infof("GitHub API rate limit getting low: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | |
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | |
| } else { | |
| v.Logger.Debugf("GitHub API rate limit status: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | |
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | |
| } | |
| if limit == 0 { | |
| v.Logger.Warnf("GitHub API rate limit 'limit' is 0, cannot calculate percentage") | |
| return | |
| } | |
| percentage := float64(remaining) / float64(limit) * 100 | |
| if percentage < 10 { | |
| v.Logger.Warnf("GitHub API rate limit critically low: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | |
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | |
| } else if percentage < 25 { | |
| v.Logger.Infof("GitHub API rate limit getting low: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | |
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | |
| } else { | |
| v.Logger.Debugf("GitHub API rate limit status: %d/%d (%.1f%%) - resets at %v", | |
| remaining, limit, percentage, resetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | |
| } |
pkg/provider/github/github.go
Outdated
| func (v *Provider) logPerformanceMetrics() { | ||
| if v.performanceMetrics == nil { | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| v.performanceMetrics.mutex.RLock() | ||
| defer v.performanceMetrics.mutex.RUnlock() | ||
|
|
||
| successRate := float64(v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls-v.performanceMetrics.FailedAPICalls) / | ||
| float64(v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls) * 100 | ||
|
|
||
| v.Logger.Infof("GitHub Provider Performance Summary - Total calls: %d, Failed: %d, Success rate: %.1f%%, Avg response time: %v", | ||
| v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls, | ||
| v.performanceMetrics.FailedAPICalls, | ||
| successRate, | ||
| v.performanceMetrics.AverageResponseTime) | ||
|
|
||
| if v.performanceMetrics.LastRateLimit != nil { | ||
| rl := v.performanceMetrics.LastRateLimit | ||
| v.Logger.Infof("Current rate limit status: %d/%d remaining, resets at %v", | ||
| rl.Remaining, rl.Limit, rl.ResetTime.Format(time.RFC3339)) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Log per-operation metrics | ||
| v.clientMetrics.Range(func(key, value interface{}) bool { | ||
| if operation, ok := key.(string); ok { | ||
| if metrics, ok := value.(map[string]interface{}); ok { | ||
| count := metrics["count"].(int) | ||
| totalDuration := metrics["totalDuration"].(time.Duration) | ||
| errors := metrics["errors"].(int) | ||
| avgDuration := totalDuration / time.Duration(count) | ||
| errorRate := float64(errors) / float64(count) * 100 | ||
|
|
||
| v.Logger.Debugf("Operation '%s': %d calls, avg duration: %v, error rate: %.1f%%", | ||
| operation, count, avgDuration, errorRate) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| return true | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function has a potential division-by-zero panic if v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls is 0. It's important to add a check to prevent this.
Additionally, to allow calling this logging function from trackAPICall (which holds a write lock), it's better to separate the locking from the logging logic to avoid deadlocks. I'm suggesting a refactor to an unlocked version that can be safely called from other methods that already have a lock.
func (v *Provider) logPerformanceMetrics() {
if v.performanceMetrics == nil {
return
}
v.performanceMetrics.mutex.RLock()
defer v.performanceMetrics.mutex.RUnlock()
v.logPerformanceMetricsUnlocked()
}
// logPerformanceMetricsUnlocked outputs current performance statistics. It assumes a lock is already held on performanceMetrics.
func (v *Provider) logPerformanceMetricsUnlocked() {
if v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls == 0 {
v.Logger.Info("GitHub Provider Performance Summary: No API calls recorded yet.")
return
}
successRate := float64(v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls-v.performanceMetrics.FailedAPICalls) /
float64(v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls) * 100
v.Logger.Infof("GitHub Provider Performance Summary - Total calls: %d, Failed: %d, Success rate: %.1f%%, Avg response time: %v",
v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls,
v.performanceMetrics.FailedAPICalls,
successRate,
v.performanceMetrics.AverageResponseTime)
if v.performanceMetrics.LastRateLimit != nil {
rl := v.performanceMetrics.LastRateLimit
v.Logger.Infof("Current rate limit status: %d/%d remaining, resets at %v",
rl.Remaining, rl.Limit, rl.ResetTime.Format(time.RFC3339))
}
// Log per-operation metrics
v.clientMetrics.Range(func(key, value interface{}) bool {
if operation, ok := key.(string); ok {
if metrics, ok := value.(map[string]interface{}); ok {
count := metrics["count"].(int)
if count == 0 {
return true // continue
}
totalDuration := metrics["totalDuration"].(time.Duration)
errors := metrics["errors"].(int)
avgDuration := totalDuration / time.Duration(count)
errorRate := float64(errors) / float64(count) * 100
v.Logger.Debugf("Operation '%s': %d calls, avg duration: %v, error rate: %.1f%%",
operation, count, avgDuration, errorRate)
}
}
return true
})
}
pkg/provider/github/github.go
Outdated
| if v.performanceMetrics != nil && v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls%50 == 0 && v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls > 0 { | ||
| v.logPerformanceMetrics() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The periodic logging of performance metrics is misplaced. TotalAPICalls is not incremented in this function, so the check will not behave as expected. This logic should be moved to trackAPICall where TotalAPICalls is incremented, to ensure metrics are logged based on the actual number of API calls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gemini-code-assist can you please make changes and commit here? I want you to do this by rebasing existing commit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for your request, @zakisk. As an AI assistant, I am unable to directly make changes to the codebase or commit to branches. My role is to provide code review feedback and suggestions to help you improve the code.
Please let me know if you would like me to provide further suggestions or clarify any of my previous comments.
pkg/provider/github/github.go
Outdated
| if existingMetric, exists := v.clientMetrics.Load(operation); exists { | ||
| if metric, ok := existingMetric.(map[string]interface{}); ok { | ||
| metric["count"] = metric["count"].(int) + 1 | ||
| metric["totalDuration"] = metric["totalDuration"].(time.Duration) + duration | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| metric["errors"] = metric["errors"].(int) + 1 | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| errorCount := 0 | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| errorCount = 1 | ||
| } | ||
| v.clientMetrics.Store(operation, map[string]interface{}{ | ||
| "count": 1, | ||
| "totalDuration": duration, | ||
| "errors": errorCount, | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using map[string]interface{} for metrics is not type-safe and can lead to runtime panics if the types are not what's expected. Consider defining a dedicated struct for operation metrics to improve type safety and maintainability. For example:
type OperationMetrics struct {
Count int64
TotalDuration time.Duration
Errors int64
}And then use v.clientMetrics.Store(operation, &OperationMetrics{...}). The values would be updated directly since trackAPICall is already under a lock.
Using Gemini Code AssistThe 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 in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either
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 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 or fill out our survey to provide feedback. |
pkg/provider/github/github.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| duration := time.Since(startTime) | ||
| v.performanceMetrics.TotalAPICalls++ | ||
| v.performanceMetrics.LastAPICallTime = time.Now() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gemini-code-assist can you please explain this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Certainly, zakisk! This section of code within the New() function is responsible for initializing key fields of the Provider struct, specifically skippedRun and the newly introduced performanceMetrics.
-
skippedRun: This field (an existing part of theProviderstruct) is initialized with async.Mutex. This mutex is used to protect concurrent access to any state related to 'skipped runs' within the provider, ensuring thread safety when multiple goroutines might try to modify this state. -
performanceMetrics: This is a new addition in this pull request. It's initialized here as a pointer to aPerformanceMetricsstruct, which itself contains async.RWMutex{}. ThisRWMutex(Read-Write Mutex) is essential for safely managing concurrent access to the performance data (likeTotalAPICalls,AverageResponseTime,LastRateLimit, etc.) that will be collected by methods such astrackAPICall,updateRateLimitInfo, andlogPerformanceMetrics.
Initializing performanceMetrics directly in the New() function ensures that every Provider instance starts with a ready-to-use metrics collector, allowing for immediate tracking of GitHub API call performance and rate limit information from the moment the provider is created.
zakisk
force-pushed
the
test-gemini-code-assist
branch
from
5671221 to
95e00bb
Compare
|
/test linters |
zakisk
force-pushed
the
test-gemini-code-assist
branch
3 times, most recently
from
24acbb1 to
13c19e4
Compare
…elines#2208) * fix: Annotate PLR when started status is reported The use of the state label (which is mutable) for deciding when to report to the SCM that the PLR was started is flaky. It was seen that the reconciler get events about PLRs with unexpected value for the state label. For example, after the status is reported to the SCM, and the label value is patched to "started", after serval reconcile iterations the label had the "queued" value again. This can happen because of unsafe patching done by controllers (not just the PAC controllers) which reconciles PLRs. Introduce a new annotation for indicating the the status was reported to the SCM. By adding an annotation which is set once, we remove the risk that its value will get overwritten by other controllers (since maps are merged when patched, values are not getting removed unless explicitly defined in the patch - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7386#section-2) In addition, at the start of each reconcile loop, ensure that we operate on the latest version of the PLR and not using a stale value from the cache. Assisted-By: Cursor Signed-off-by: Gal Ben Haim <[email protected]>
zakisk
force-pushed
the
test-gemini-code-assist
branch
from
13c19e4 to
a9d1b7d
Compare
📝 Description of the Change
🔗 Linked GitHub Issue
Fixes #
👨🏻 Linked Jira
🚀 Type of Change
fix:)feat:)feat!:,fix!:)docs:)chore:)refactor:)enhance:)deps:)🧪 Testing Strategy
✅ Submitter Checklist
fix:,feat:) matches the "Type of Change" I selected above.make testandmake lintlocally to check for and fix anyissues. For an efficient workflow, I have considered installing
pre-commit and running
pre-commit installtoautomate these checks.