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.

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

add retry object to the connection #65

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 22, 2024

Conversation

MuhammadQadora
Copy link
Collaborator

@MuhammadQadora MuhammadQadora commented Sep 22, 2024

fix #64

Added a retry object for the Redis connection that is created after getting the master connection.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced connection handling with a new retry parameter for improved reliability when connecting to the database.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Addressed potential connection issues by modifying the connection logic to include retry capabilities.

@MuhammadQadora MuhammadQadora linked an issue Sep 22, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 22, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a modification to the connection handling logic in the falkordb.py file. Specifically, the master_for method in the Sentinel class has been updated to include a new retry parameter, which alters how connections are established when a sentinel is detected. This change aims to enhance the connection capabilities when interacting with Redis.

Changes

File Change Summary
falkordb/falkordb.py Updated master_for method to include a new retry parameter.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Add retry to the sentinel connection (#64)

Possibly related PRs

  • Use ssl for sentinel #48: Involves modifications to the connection handling logic in falkordb.py, specifically related to the ssl parameter in the master_for method.

Poem

In the code where sentinels dwell,
A new retry, oh what a spell!
Connections now with grace will flow,
As rabbits hop and watch it grow.
With every change, we cheer and play,
For better links are here to stay! 🐇✨


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?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    -- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    -- Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    -- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    -- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    -- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    -- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    -- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    -- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 22, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.27%. Comparing base (1544d89) to head (495ddb6).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
falkordb/falkordb.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #65   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.27%   92.27%           
=======================================
  Files          35       35           
  Lines        2601     2601           
=======================================
  Hits         2400     2400           
  Misses        201      201           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1544d89 and 495ddb6.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • falkordb/falkordb.py (1 hunks)
Additional context used
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
falkordb/falkordb.py

[warning] 126-126: falkordb/falkordb.py#L126
Added line #L126 was not covered by tests

@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@

if Is_Sentinel(conn):
self.sentinel, self.service_name = Sentinel_Conn(conn, ssl)
conn = self.sentinel.master_for(self.service_name, ssl=ssl)
conn = self.sentinel.master_for(self.service_name, ssl=ssl, retry=retry)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Improve test coverage for the added retry functionality.

The addition of the retry parameter to the master_for method call is a positive change that can enhance the reliability of the Redis connection when using a sentinel. It aligns well with the PR objectives and has the potential to handle transient failures more effectively.

However, the static analysis tool has flagged that the added line is not covered by tests. To ensure the retry mechanism behaves as expected and to maintain a high level of code quality, it is crucial to add test cases that validate the functionality of the retry parameter.

Do you want me to generate the missing test cases or open a GitHub issue to track this task?

Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 126-126: falkordb/falkordb.py#L126
Added line #L126 was not covered by tests

@dudizimber dudizimber merged commit fb56ead into main Sep 22, 2024
8 of 9 checks passed
@dudizimber dudizimber deleted the 64-add-retry-to-the-sentinel-connection branch September 22, 2024 07:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add retry to the sentinel connection
2 participants