Add PushHandleInner doc comment #227
Conversation
Reviewer's GuideThis PR adds comprehensive documentation for the PushHandleInner struct, clarifying its purpose as the shared state for cloned PushHandle instances and outlining its internal components. Class diagram for PushHandleInner documentation updateclassDiagram
class PushHandleInner {
high_prio_tx: mpsc::Sender<F>
low_prio_tx: mpsc::Sender<F>
// Optional rate limiter (not shown in diff, but mentioned in doc)
// Optional dead letter queue (not shown in diff, but mentioned in doc)
}
class PushHandle {
}
class Arc~PushHandleInner~ {
}
PushHandle "1" -- "1" Arc~PushHandleInner~ : holds reference
Arc~PushHandleInner~ "1" -- "1" PushHandleInner : wraps
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
Summary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughAdded a detailed documentation comment to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)No sequence diagrams generated due to the nature of the changes focusing on refactoring and documentation without new control flow or feature additions. Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![codescene-delta-analysis[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/53921?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(1 files improve in Code Health)
Gates Passed
See analysis details in CodeScene
View Improvements
| File | Code Health Impact | Categories Improved |
|---|---|---|
| push.rs | 9.69 → 10.00 | Complex Conditional |
Quality Gate Profile: Pay Down Tech Debt
Want more control? Customize Code Health rules or catch issues early with our IDE extension and CLI tool.
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
examples/metadata_routing.rs(1 hunks)src/connection.rs(9 hunks)src/push.rs(4 hunks)src/server.rs(3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
**/*.rs
⚙️ CodeRabbit Configuration File
**/*.rs: * Seek to keep the cyclomatic complexity of functions no more than 12.
Adhere to single responsibility and CQRS
Place function attributes after doc comments.
Do not use
returnin single-line functions.Move conditionals with >2 branches into a predicate function.
Avoid
unsafeunless absolutely necessary.Every module must begin with a
//!doc comment that explains the module's purpose and utility.Comments and docs must follow en-GB-oxendict (-ize / -our) spelling and grammar
Lints must not be silenced except as a last resort.
#[allow]is forbidden.- Only narrowly scoped
#[expect(lint, reason = "...")]is allowed.- No lint groups, no blanket or file-wide suppression.
- Include
FIXME:with link if a fix is expected.Use
rstestfixtures for shared setup and to avoid repetition between tests.Replace duplicated tests with
#[rstest(...)]parameterised cases.Prefer
mockallfor mocks/stubs.Prefer
.expect()over.unwrap()Ensure that any API or behavioural changes are reflected in the documentation in
docs/Ensure that any completed roadmap steps are recorded in the appropriate roadmap in
docs/Files must not exceed 400 lines in length
- Large modules must be decomposed
- Long match statements or dispatch tables should be decomposed by domain and collocated with targets
- Large blocks of inline data (e.g., test fixtures, constants or templates) must be moved to external files and inlined at compile-time or loaded at run-time.
Files:
examples/metadata_routing.rssrc/server.rssrc/push.rssrc/connection.rs
🔇 Additional comments (12)
src/push.rs (4)
88-92: Excellent documentation addition.The documentation clearly explains the purpose and usage of
PushHandleInner, aligning perfectly with the PR objective to improve code clarity.
105-107: LGTM on method formatting.The expansion from single-line to multi-line format is consistent with the broader codebase changes and maintains clarity.
263-265: LGTM on method formatting.The multi-line format improves consistency across the codebase.
394-398: Improve validation logic clarity.The restructured validation logic using nested conditionals instead of combined
if letwith logical AND improves readability and follows better control flow patterns.src/server.rs (2)
232-234: LGTM on method formatting.The expansion to multi-line format maintains consistency with the broader codebase refactoring.
474-478: Improve pattern matching clarity.The restructured pattern matching from combined
if letwith logical AND to nestedifstatements enhances readability and follows clearer control flow patterns.src/connection.rs (6)
46-48: LGTM on function formatting.The expansion to multi-line format maintains consistency with the broader codebase refactoring.
122-132: Excellent encapsulation with ProcessContext.The introduction of
ProcessContextto bundle mutable references toActorStateand output vector reduces parameter passing complexity and improves code organisation. This follows good encapsulation principles.
325-340: Effective refactoring with generic process_push method.The refactored
process_highandprocess_lowmethods now delegate to a genericprocess_pushhelper, eliminating code duplication whilst maintaining clear separation of queue-specific behaviour through callbacks. This follows the DRY principle effectively.
342-359: Excellent generic helper implementation.The
process_pushmethod provides a clean abstraction for push queue processing with customisable callbacks for handlingSome(frame)andNonecases. The generic approach allows code reuse whilst preserving specific behaviour for different queue types.
414-429: Improve conditional structure clarity.The restructured conditional logic in
after_highusing nestedifstatements instead of combinedif letwith logical operations enhances readability and follows clearer control flow patterns.
581-593: LGTM on predicate method formatting.The expansion of
is_active,is_shutting_down, andis_donemethods from single-line to multi-line format maintains consistency across the codebase.
|
|
||
| #[derive(bincode::Decode, bincode::Encode)] | ||
| #[expect(dead_code, reason = "used only in documentation example")] | ||
| #[allow(dead_code)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Revert the lint attribute change.
This change violates the coding guidelines which explicitly forbid #[allow] attributes. Use the narrowly scoped #[expect(...)] with a descriptive reason instead.
Apply this diff to fix the lint attribute:
-#[allow(dead_code)]
+#[expect(dead_code, reason = "used only in documentation example")]🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In examples/metadata_routing.rs at line 63, the use of #[allow(dead_code)]
violates coding guidelines that forbid #[allow] attributes. Replace
#[allow(dead_code)] with a narrowly scoped #[expect(dead_code, reason = "explain
why this code is expected to be unused")] attribute, providing a clear
descriptive reason for the expectation.
| /// Test helper preamble carrying no data. | ||
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Encode, Decode)] | ||
| #[expect(dead_code, reason = "test helper for unused preamble type")] | ||
| #[allow(dead_code)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Revert the lint attribute change.
This change violates the coding guidelines which explicitly forbid #[allow] attributes. Use the narrowly scoped #[expect(...)] with a descriptive reason instead.
Apply this diff to fix the lint attribute:
-#[allow(dead_code)]
+#[expect(dead_code, reason = "test helper struct")]🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In src/server.rs at line 525, revert the use of the #[allow(dead_code)]
attribute as it violates coding guidelines. Replace it with a narrowly scoped
#[expect(dead_code, reason = "...")] attribute, providing a clear descriptive
reason for why the code is expected to be dead. This maintains compliance with
guidelines while documenting the rationale.
1 participant
Summary
Testing
make fmtmake lintmake testhttps://chatgpt.com/codex/tasks/task_e_688bc7826eb88322a35a54663c6558d9
Summary by Sourcery
Documentation: