Delete useless loop in TransportBulkAction$BulkOperation.doRun() #16950
Conversation
kkewwei
requested review from
anasalkouz,
andrross,
ashking94,
Bukhtawar,
CEHENKLE,
dblock,
dbwiddis,
gbbafna,
jainankitk,
kotwanikunal,
linuxpi,
mch2,
msfroh,
nknize,
owaiskazi19,
reta,
Rishikesh1159,
sachinpkale,
saratvemulapalli,
shwetathareja,
sohami and
VachaShah
as code owners
Signed-off-by: kkewwei <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kkewwei <[email protected]>
kkewwei
force-pushed
the
delete_useless_loop_in_TransportBulkAction
branch
from
9f29f7c to
0e48cc9
Compare
|
❕ Gradle check result for 0e48cc9: UNSTABLE Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #16950 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 72.21% 72.26% +0.04%
- Complexity 65232 65304 +72
============================================
Files 5299 5299
Lines 303496 303491 -5
Branches 43931 43929 -2
============================================
+ Hits 219181 219325 +144
+ Misses 66302 66156 -146
+ Partials 18013 18010 -3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
org.opensearch.cluster.MinimumClusterManagerNodesIT.testThreeNodesNoClusterManagerBlock #14289 |
andrross
added
backport 2.x
| .indexShards(clusterState, concreteIndex.getName(), docWriteRequest.id(), docWriteRequest.routing()) | ||
| .shardId(); | ||
| List<BulkItemRequest> shardRequests = requestsByShard.computeIfAbsent(shardId, shard -> new ArrayList<>()); | ||
| shardRequests.add(new BulkItemRequest(i, docWriteRequest)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are two conditions above that skip the doc before getting here:
if (addFailureIfRequiresAliasAndAliasIsMissing(docWriteRequest, i, metadata)) {
continue;
}
if (addFailureIfIndexIsUnavailable(docWriteRequest, i, concreteIndices, metadata)) {
continue;
}
Those conditions are not present in the loop below. On the surface this looks like a logical difference. Is this a problem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@andrross For most indexing, these two conditions are not fulfilled. Merely creating a new loop for the sole purpose of calculating the shardId appears to be rather pointless.
Description
The second loop is useless, we can merge it into the first loop. The exist it/ut can cover the changed, I don't know whether I should add additional test about it.
Related Issues
Resolves #[Issue number to be closed when this PR is merged]
Check List
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.