Skip to content
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

Add async methods to the ResolverClient #18814

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Feb 17, 2021
Merged

Add async methods to the ResolverClient #18814

merged 18 commits into from
Feb 17, 2021

Conversation

azabbasi
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@azabbasi azabbasi changed the base branch from master to feature/modelsRepo February 17, 2021 00:02
azabbasi
azabbasi commented Feb 17, 2021
View reviewed changes
sdk/modelsrepository/Azure.Iot.ModelsRepository/src/RepositoryHandler.cs Outdated
return Process(new List<string>() { dtmi }, cancellationToken);
}

public IDictionary<string, string> Process(IEnumerable<string> dtmis, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
Copy link
Contributor Author

@azabbasi azabbasi Feb 17, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As of now, this method is the exact replica of the async method with the exception of calling Fetch instead of FetchAsync
I am speaking to a few people to see what is the right way to do this, duplicating this much code just to change a sync vs async call is really expensive.

for now, I will leave the PR in this state so other things can be reviewed while I investigate different options.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

using bool async pattern
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/blob/master/sdk/core/Azure.Core/src/Pipeline/Internal/RetryPolicy.cs#L45
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/blob/master/sdk/core/Azure.Core/src/Pipeline/Internal/RetryPolicy.cs#L55-L61

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice. And good find of prior art.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems like a reasonable way to do it. :)

azabbasi
azabbasi commented Feb 17, 2021
View reviewed changes
sdk/modelsrepository/Azure.Iot.ModelsRepository/src/Fetchers/LocalModelFetcher.cs
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ public FetchResult Fetch(string dtmi, Uri repositoryUri, CancellationToken cance
fnfError = string.Format(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture, ServiceStrings.ErrorFetchingModelContent, tryContentPath);
}

throw new RequestFailedException(fnfError, new FileNotFoundException(fnfError));
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Based on RequestFailedException documentation, it only applies to requests that have an HTTP status.
This exception is caught at RepositoryHandler level and converted to a ResolverException which is currently the Exception that is exposed to users.
We will have a discussion about the Exception that is thrown from the ResolverException point of view during the initial API review

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's add doc comments to the client that indicate what exception types can be thrown and when.

digimaun
digimaun reviewed Feb 17, 2021
View reviewed changes
sdk/modelsrepository/Azure.Iot.ModelsRepository/src/ModelQuery.cs
@@ -4,7 +4,6 @@
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.IO;
using System.Text.Json;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Placeholder/reminder that there is a cleaner implementation of model parsing logic recently merged in the DMR tools repo, which I will update here after this PR is merged.

@check-enforcer
Copy link

This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer.

What is Check Enforcer?

Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass.

Why am I getting this message?

You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged.

What should I do now?

If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows:
/check-enforcer evaluate
Typically evaulation only takes a few seconds. If you know that your pull request is not covered by a pipeline and this is expected you can override Check Enforcer using the following command:
/check-enforcer override
Note that using the override command triggers alerts so that follow-up investigations can occur (PRs still need to be approved as normal).

What if I am onboarding a new service?

Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them. In order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, please perform following steps:

For data-plane/track 2 SDKs Issue the following command as a pull request comment:

/azp run prepare-pipelines
This will run a pipeline that analyzes the source tree and creates the pipelines necessary to build and validate your pull request. Once the pipeline has been created you can trigger the pipeline using the following comment:
/azp run net - [service] - ci

For track 1 management-plane SDKs

Please open a separate PR and to your service SDK path in this file. Once that PR has been merged, you can re-run the pipeline to trigger the verification.

@azabbasi azabbasi merged commit b1de661 into feature/modelsRepo Feb 17, 2021
@azabbasi azabbasi deleted the azabbasi/RemoteFetcher branch February 17, 2021 01:55
azabbasi added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2021
@azabbasi
(modelsRepo): Initial commit: Azure.Iot.ModelsRepository (#18998)
733e79a 
* Initial Commit - Bring ModelRepository Project to the mono repo (#18706)
* Use resx file and update formattings.
* Add client diagnostics - Add sync APIs to RemoteFetcher and LocalFetcher (#18807)
* Add async methods to the ResolverClient (#18814)
* Add support for recorded tests. (#18836)
* Add support for recorded tests.
* Make strings constants
* Update file names to include plural models
* Refactor RepositoryHandler and ResolverClient (#18857)
* Refactor ModelQuery (#18843)
* Refactor ModelQuery.
* Combine constant files.
* Rename Client to ModelsRepoClient (#18862)
* Remove ResolverException in favor of RequestFailedException (#18874)
* Remove ResolverException in favor of RequestFailedException. Adds more docstrings.
* Rename Repo to Repository and minor changes / Import samples project (#18986)
* Format changes/Remove resx file.
* Add first draft of readme. Add comment for dtmi validation. (#18987)
* Add comment for dtmi validation.
* Fix links.
* Add diagnostic event info.
* Source link specifically pointing to 'src' folder.
* Use fluent assertion
* Use playback as default
* fix Links and root service directory casing
Co-authored-by: Paymaun <Paymaunh@microsoft.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@drwill-ms drwill-ms drwill-ms approved these changes

@digimaun digimaun digimaun approved these changes

@AlexGhiondea AlexGhiondea Awaiting requested review from AlexGhiondea

@danieljurek danieljurek Awaiting requested review from danieljurek

@mitchdenny mitchdenny Awaiting requested review from mitchdenny

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@azabbasi @drwill-ms @digimaun