[ECO-5099] Update RoomStatus and ConnectionStatus interfaces #48
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant updates to the connection and room management systems within the chat application. Key changes include the addition of a new constant and enumeration for connection statuses, the introduction of a data class to encapsulate connection status changes, and modifications to the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 (
|
sacOO7
force-pushed
the
tests/roomlifecycle-attach
branch
from
8c96226
to
774cc3b
Compare
sacOO7
force-pushed
the
rename/room_and_connection_status
branch
from
951d17b
to
0fae205
Compare
sacOO7
changed the title
sacOO7
changed the title
…tion_status # Conflicts: # chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManagerTest.kt
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt (1)
80-90: Consider enhancing the documentation with examples.While the methods are well-designed following the observer pattern, the documentation could be more helpful by including:
- Usage examples
- Typical scenarios when these methods should be called
- Cleanup recommendations using the returned Subscription
Example addition to the documentation:
/** * Registers a listener that will be called whenever the room status changes. * @param listener The function to call when the status changes. * @returns An object that can be used to unregister the listener. + * + * Example usage: + * ``` + * val subscription = room.onStatusChange { status -> + * when (status) { + * is RoomStatus.Attached -> println("Room attached") + * is RoomStatus.Failed -> handleError(status.error) + * } + * } + * // Later, when cleaning up: + * subscription.unsubscribe() + * ``` */chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManagerTest.kt (3)
83-95: Consider adding documentation for the concurrent operation flow.While the test implementation is correct, adding a brief comment explaining the expected flow of concurrent operations would improve maintainability.
+ // Test verifies that: + // 1. Release operation starts and moves to Releasing state + // 2. Attach operation is queued while Release is in progress + // 3. After Release completes, Attach operation fails due to Released state val statusLifecycle = spyk<DefaultRoomLifecycle>()Also applies to: 103-112
Line range hint
174-202: Consider extracting channel name strings as constants.The test correctly verifies channel attachment behavior, but the hardcoded channel names could be moved to constants for better maintainability.
+ private companion object { + const val CHAT_MESSAGES_CHANNEL = "1234::\$chat::\$chatMessages" + const val TYPING_INDICATORS_CHANNEL = "1234::\$chat::\$typingIndicators" + const val REACTIONS_CHANNEL = "1234::\$chat::\$reactions" + }
Line range hint
371-401: Consider using a more descriptive name for the retry counter.The test implementation is correct, but the variable
failDetachTimescould be renamed to better describe its purpose.- var failDetachTimes = 5 + var remainingDetachRetries = 5chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Connection.kt (2)
5-7: Correct grammar in documentation comment forTRANSIENT_TIMEOUTconstantThere is a grammatical error in the documentation comment for
TRANSIENT_TIMEOUT. The phrase 'before we attempt handle them as a state change' should be corrected to 'before we handle them as a state change.'Suggested fix:
/** - * Default timeout for transient states before we attempt handle them as a state change. + * Default timeout for transient states before we handle them as a state change. */
65-68: Clarify whenretryInmight be null inConnectionStatusChangeIn the documentation for
retryIn, it would be helpful to specify under which conditionsretryInmay be null. This can provide better clarity for users of the API.Suggested revision:
/** - * The time in milliseconds that the client will wait before attempting to reconnect. + * The time in milliseconds that the client will wait before attempting to reconnect, or `null` if not applicable. */ val retryIn: Long?chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt (2)
138-150: Consistency check: Review the naming ofNewRoomStatusinterfaceThe
NewRoomStatusinterface is introduced to represent a new room status that can be set. Verify that this naming aligns with the overall renaming strategy. IfRoomLifecycleis being renamed, consider ifNewRoomStatusshould be adjusted for consistency.
Line range hint
173-178: Update listener types inRoomStatusEventEmitterfor consistencyIn
RoomStatusEventEmitter, the listener type remainsRoomLifecycle.Listener. To stay consistent with the renaming, consider updating the listener type to reflect the new interface name.Apply this diff to update the listener type:
-class RoomStatusEventEmitter : EventEmitter<RoomStatus, RoomLifecycle.Listener>() { +class RoomStatusEventEmitter : EventEmitter<RoomStatus, RoomStatusInterface.Listener>() { override fun apply(listener: RoomLifecycle.Listener?, event: RoomStatus?, vararg args: Any?) { - listener?.roomStatusChanged(args[0] as RoomStatusChange) + listener?.roomStatusChanged(args[0] as RoomStatusChange) } }Ensure all listener references are updated to the new interface.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (3)
Line range hint
219-271: RefactordoRetrymethod to reduce cognitive complexityThe
doRetrymethod is annotated with@SuppressWarnings("CognitiveComplexMethod"), indicating high cognitive complexity. Refactoring this method into smaller, focused functions can improve readability and maintainability.Consider breaking down the method as follows:
- Extract the logic for handling channel wind-down into a separate function.
- Separate the retry mechanism into its own function.
- Simplify nested coroutines and exception handling to make the control flow clearer.
Line range hint
451-480: RefactordoChannelWindDownmethod to reduce cognitive complexityThe
doChannelWindDownmethod is marked with@SuppressWarnings("CognitiveComplexMethod", "ComplexCondition"), suggesting that it is complex and may be difficult to maintain. Simplifying conditions and splitting the method into smaller functions can enhance clarity.Consider the following refactoring steps:
- Simplify complex conditional statements by extracting them into well-named boolean functions.
- Break down the method into smaller functions that handle specific parts of the wind-down process.
- Reduce the use of nested control structures where possible.
98-98: Adjust visibility modifier for consistencyThe
statusproperty is publicly accessible, but its backing fieldstatusFieldis marked asinternal. SincestatusFieldis only used within the class, consider making itprivatefor encapsulation.Apply this change:
-internal var statusField: RoomStatus = RoomStatus.Attached +private var statusField: RoomStatus = RoomStatus.Attached
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Connection.kt(2 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/ConnectionStatus.kt(0 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt(4 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt(13 hunks)chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt(6 hunks)chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManagerTest.kt(19 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/ConnectionStatus.kt
🔇 Additional comments (15)
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Room.kt (1)
60-79: LGTM! Good practices in property definitions.
The new properties are well-documented and follow good practices:
optionsreturns a copy to maintain immutabilityerroris appropriately nullable- Documentation follows standard format with clear descriptions
chat-android/src/test/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManagerTest.kt (4)
38-39: LGTM! Clean transition to new status types.
The changes correctly implement the new DefaultRoomLifecycle and RoomStatus types, maintaining the test's original intent.
49-50: LGTM! Consistent error handling implementation.
The error scenario tests maintain consistency in their implementation while adopting the new status types. The error messages and codes are appropriately verified.
Also applies to: 66-67
130-139: LGTM! Clear status transition verification.
The test effectively verifies the status transition sequence using the new RoomStatus types and change notification system.
Line range hint 223-272: LGTM! Comprehensive failure scenario testing.
The tests effectively cover both suspended and failed states, with proper verification of error handling, status transitions, and error messages.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/Connection.kt (2)
13-43: Definition of ConnectionStatus enum is well-structured
The ConnectionStatus enum is well-defined with appropriate statuses and clear documentation.
Line range hint 72-106: Connection interface is well-defined and clear
The Connection interface provides a clear and intuitive API for managing connection states, including status tracking and listeners for status changes.
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt (6)
12-12: Renaming enum to RoomStatus enhances clarity
The enum class has been appropriately renamed to RoomStatus, which improves clarity and aligns with the PR objectives of enhancing the public API exposure.
81-86: Updated RoomStatusChange properties for consistency
The current and previous properties in RoomStatusChange now correctly reference RoomStatus, ensuring consistency throughout the codebase.
98-133:
Incomplete renaming: Interface RoomLifecycle should be renamed to RoomStatusInterface
While the enum has been renamed to RoomStatus, the interface RoomLifecycle still retains the old naming convention. To maintain consistency and clarity, consider renaming the RoomLifecycle interface to RoomStatusInterface.
Run the following script to identify all usages of RoomLifecycle in the codebase:
Apply this diff to rename the interface and update references:
-interface RoomLifecycle {
+interface RoomStatusInterface {Ensure all implementations and references are updated accordingly.
156-169:
Incomplete renaming: Interface InternalRoomLifecycle should be renamed
The InternalRoomLifecycle interface still uses the old nomenclature. To maintain consistency with the new RoomStatus naming convention, consider renaming InternalRoomLifecycle to InternalRoomStatusInterface.
Run the following script to find all occurrences of InternalRoomLifecycle:
Apply this diff to rename the interface:
-interface InternalRoomLifecycle : RoomLifecycle {
+interface InternalRoomStatusInterface : RoomStatusInterface {Update all implementations and references accordingly.
Line range hint 182-218: Rename DefaultRoomLifecycle to DefaultRoomStatusInterface for alignment
The class DefaultRoomLifecycle should be renamed to align with the new naming conventions. Renaming it to DefaultRoomStatusInterface will maintain consistency across the codebase.
Run the following script to find all occurrences of DefaultRoomLifecycle:
Apply this diff to rename the class:
-class DefaultRoomLifecycle(private val logger: LogHandler? = null) : InternalRoomLifecycle {
+class DefaultRoomStatusInterface(private val logger: LogHandler? = null) : InternalRoomStatusInterface {
private val _logger = logger
private var _status = RoomStatus.Initializing
override val status: RoomStatus
get() = _statusEnsure that all references and usages of this class are updated accordingly.
212-217: Potential issue with status update logic in setStatus method
In the setStatus method, the new status is set before emitting events. This is correct. However, ensure that the event listeners are aware of the correct previous and current statuses when the event is emitted.
Run the following script to check if the RoomStatusChange is correctly capturing previous and current statuses:
Review the output to ensure that the RoomStatusChange instances are constructed with accurate previous and current statuses.
✅ Verification successful
These scripts will help us verify:
- The implementation of RoomStatus class and its status management
- The RoomStatusChange class structure to see how it handles previous and current states
- The complete setStatus method implementation to understand the status transition logic
These scripts will help us verify:
- The complete implementation of the internal setStatus method where the actual status transition happens
- How the _status field is managed, which is crucial for maintaining the previous state
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Status transition logic in setStatus is correctly implemented
The implementation correctly handles status transitions:
RoomStatusChangeconstructor receives the new status (params.status) and previous status (_status) in the correct order- The status update (
_status = change.current) happens before event emission - Both internal and external emitters receive the same
RoomStatusChangeobject containing accurate previous and current states
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the correctness of status transitions in event emissions.
rg -A5 'fun setStatus' -- '.*\.kt$'
Length of output: 85
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for RoomStatus class implementation and status-related code
rg -A 10 'class RoomStatus'
Length of output: 2747
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for RoomStatusChange class implementation
rg -A 5 'class RoomStatusChange'
Length of output: 474
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for setStatus method implementation using ast-grep
ast-grep --pattern 'fun setStatus($$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 733
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the internal setStatus method implementation that's being called
rg -B 5 -A 10 'internal fun setStatus|private fun setStatus'
Length of output: 62
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for _status field usage and initialization
rg '_status\s*=' -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 969
chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt (2)
184-184: Initialize operation progress flag in constructor
The _operationInProgress flag is set based on the initial status of _statusLifecycle. Ensure that this initialization accounts for all possible statuses to prevent unintended behavior.
Double-check that all relevant statuses are considered when initializing _operationInProgress.
219-219: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use == instead of === when comparing enum values
In Kotlin, enums should be compared using == for equality checks rather than ===, which checks referential equality. Using == ensures that the enum values are compared based on their contents, which is the standard practice for enums.
Apply the following diff to correct the enum comparisons:
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ private suspend fun doRetry(contributor: ResolvedContributor) {
// If in doing the wind down, we've entered failed state, then it's game over anyway
- if (this._statusLifecycle.status === RoomStatus.Failed) {
+ if (this._statusLifecycle.status == RoomStatus.Failed) {
error("room is in a failed state")
}
}
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ private suspend fun doRetry(contributor: ResolvedContributor) {
// If we're in failed, then we should wind down all the channels, eventually - but we're done here
- if (attachmentResult.status === RoomStatus.Failed) {
+ if (attachmentResult.status == RoomStatus.Failed) {
atomicCoroutineScope.async(LifecycleOperationPrecedence.Internal.priority) {
runDownChannelsOnFailedAttach()
}
@@ -241,10 +241,10 @@ private suspend fun doRetry(contributor: ResolvedContributor) {
// If we're in suspended, then we should wait for the channel to reattach, but wait for it to do so
- if (attachmentResult.status === RoomStatus.Suspended) {
+ if (attachmentResult.status == RoomStatus.Suspended) {
val failedFeature = attachmentResult.failedFeature
if (failedFeature == null) {
AblyException.fromErrorInfo(
ErrorInfo(
"no failed feature in doRetry",
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ private suspend fun doRetry(contributor: ResolvedContributor) = suspendCancellab
} catch (ex: AblyException) {
// Channel attach failed
- _statusLifecycle.setStatus(RoomStatus.Failed, ex.errorInfo)
+ _statusLifecycle.setStatus(RoomStatus.Failed, ex.errorInfo)
throw ex
}
}
@@ -302,12 +302,12 @@ internal suspend fun attach() {
when (_statusLifecycle.status) {
- RoomStatus.Attached -> return@async // CHA-RL1a
- RoomStatus.Releasing -> // CHA-RL1b
+ RoomStatus.Attached -> return@async // CHA-RL1a
+ RoomStatus.Releasing -> // CHA-RL1b
throw AblyException.fromErrorInfo(
ErrorInfo(
"unable to attach room; room is releasing",
HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError,
ErrorCodes.RoomIsReleasing.errorCode,
),
)
- RoomStatus.Released -> // CHA-RL1c
+ RoomStatus.Released -> // CHA-RL1c
throw AblyException.fromErrorInfo(
ErrorInfo(
"unable to attach room; room is released",
@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ internal suspend fun attach() {
// CHA-RL1h4 - If we're in a failed state, then we should wind down all the channels, eventually
- if (attachResult.status === RoomStatus.Failed) {
+ if (attachResult.status == RoomStatus.Failed) {
// CHA-RL1h5 - detach all remaining channels
atomicCoroutineScope.async(LifecycleOperationPrecedence.Internal.priority) {
runDownChannelsOnFailedAttach()
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ internal suspend fun attach() {
// CHA-RL1h1, CHA-RL1h2 - If we're in suspended, then this attach should fail, but we'll retry after a short delay async
- if (attachResult.status === RoomStatus.Suspended) {
+ if (attachResult.status == RoomStatus.Suspended) {
if (attachResult.failedFeature == null) {
AblyException.fromErrorInfo(
ErrorInfo(
"no failed feature in attach",
@@ -389,10 +389,10 @@ private suspend fun doAttach(): RoomAttachmentResult {
// The current feature should be in one of two states, it will be either suspended or failed
// If it's in suspended, we wind down the other channels and wait for the reattach
// If it's failed, we can fail the entire room
when (feature.channel.state) {
- ChannelState.suspended -> attachResult.statusField = RoomStatus.Suspended
- ChannelState.failed -> attachResult.statusField = RoomStatus.Failed
+ ChannelState.suspended -> attachResult.statusField = RoomStatus.Suspended
+ ChannelState.failed -> attachResult.statusField = RoomStatus.Failed
else -> {
attachResult.statusField = RoomStatus.Failed
attachResult.errorField = ErrorInfo(
"unexpected channel state in doAttach ${feature.channel.state}${feature.channel.errorMessage}",
@@ -456,13 +456,13 @@ private suspend fun doChannelWindDown(except: ResolvedContributor? = null) = cor
// If the room's already in the failed state, or it's releasing, we should not detach a failed channel
if ((
- _statusLifecycle.status === RoomStatus.Failed ||
- _statusLifecycle.status === RoomStatus.Releasing ||
- _statusLifecycle.status === RoomStatus.Released
+ _statusLifecycle.status == RoomStatus.Failed ||
+ _statusLifecycle.status == RoomStatus.Releasing ||
+ _statusLifecycle.status == RoomStatus.Released
) &&
contributor.channel.state === ChannelState.failed
) {
return@async
}
@@ -471,13 +471,13 @@ private suspend fun doChannelWindDown(except: ResolvedContributor? = null) = cor
// If the contributor is in a failed state and we're not ignoring failed states, we should fail the room
if (
contributor.channel.state === ChannelState.failed &&
- _statusLifecycle.status !== RoomStatus.Failed &&
- _statusLifecycle.status !== RoomStatus.Releasing &&
- _statusLifecycle.status !== RoomStatus.Released
+ _statusLifecycle.status != RoomStatus.Failed &&
+ _statusLifecycle.status != RoomStatus.Releasing &&
+ _statusLifecycle.status != RoomStatus.Released
) {
val contributorError = ErrorInfo(
"failed to detach feature",
HttpStatusCodes.InternalServerError,
contributor.contributor.detachmentErrorCode.errorCode,
)Also applies to: 233-233, 241-241, 271-271, 302-303, 311-311, 330-330, 339-339, 389-390, 392-392, 456-458, 471-473
⛔ Skipped due to learnings
Learnt from: sacOO7
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-kotlin#55
File: chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomLifecycleManager.kt:487-489
Timestamp: 2024-11-17T15:00:12.153Z
Learning: In `RoomLifecycleManager.kt` (Kotlin), within the `doChannelWindDown` method, it's intentional to use referential equality (`===`) to compare `contributor.channel` and `except?.channel` as per specification CHA-RL5a1.
| _lifecycleManager = RoomLifecycleManager(roomScope, _statusLifecycle, features, _logger) | ||
| /** | ||
| * TODO | ||
| * Make sure previous release op. for same was a success. | ||
| * Make sure channels were removed using realtime.channels.release(contributor.channel.name); | ||
| * Once this is a success, set room to initialized, if not set it to failed and throw error. | ||
| * Note that impl. can change based on recent proposed changes to chat-room-lifecycle DR. | ||
| */ | ||
| this.status.setStatus(RoomLifecycle.Initialized) | ||
| this._statusLifecycle.setStatus(RoomStatus.Initialized) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Address TODO comments and verify initialization sequence.
The initialization logic contains multiple TODO comments indicating incomplete implementation:
- Feature initialization based on RoomOptions
- Channel release verification
- Proper error handling during initialization
These TODOs seem critical for proper room lifecycle management.
Would you like me to help create GitHub issues to track these TODOs? They should cover:
- Feature initialization based on RoomOptions
- Channel release verification
- Error handling during initialization
| private val _statusLifecycle = DefaultRoomLifecycle(logger) | ||
| internal val statusLifecycle: DefaultRoomLifecycle | ||
| get() = _statusLifecycle | ||
|
|
||
| override val status: RoomStatus | ||
| get() = _statusLifecycle.status | ||
|
|
||
| override val error: ErrorInfo? | ||
| get() = _statusLifecycle.error | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Thread-safety concerns identified in status lifecycle management
The current implementation of DefaultRoomLifecycle has potential thread-safety issues:
- Mutable state (
_statusand_error) is accessed without synchronization - Status updates through
setStatusmethod modify shared state and emit events without thread coordination - The
EventEmitterbase class implementation needs to be verified for thread-safe event handling
Recommendations:
- Add
@Synchronizedto thesetStatusmethods - Consider using
AtomicReferencefor_statusand_errorfields - Ensure
EventEmitterbase class has thread-safe listener management
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify thread-safety of status lifecycle management.
The status lifecycle implementation looks good, but let's verify the thread-safety of status updates.
Let me gather more information about the DefaultRoomLifecycle implementation to verify its thread-safety.
Let me check for any synchronization mechanisms in the RoomStatus.kt file and look for event listeners that might be involved in concurrent access.
Let me check the implementation of RoomStatusEventEmitter and AtomicCoroutineScope since they seem to be key components in handling concurrent operations.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any concurrent modifications to _statusLifecycle
rg -A 5 "_statusLifecycle\." --type kotlin
# Look for other implementations of DefaultRoomLifecycle to verify thread-safety
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : DefaultRoomLifecycle {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 10485
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for DefaultRoomLifecycle implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class DefaultRoomLifecycle {
$$$
}'
# Search for concurrent access patterns in DefaultRoomLifecycle
rg -A 10 "class DefaultRoomLifecycle" --type kotlin
# Look for synchronization mechanisms
rg "@Synchronized|@Volatile|synchronized|AtomicReference" --type kotlin DefaultRoomLifecycle
Length of output: 1213
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the complete implementation in RoomStatus.kt
rg -A 30 "class DefaultRoomLifecycle" chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt
# Look for event listener implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $_ : RoomLifecycle.Listener {
$$$
}'
# Check if there are any concurrent collections used
rg "ConcurrentHashMap|Collections\.synchronized|concurrent\." --type kotlin
Length of output: 1440
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check RoomStatusEventEmitter implementation
rg -A 20 "class RoomStatusEventEmitter" --type kotlin
# Check AtomicCoroutineScope implementation
rg -A 20 "class AtomicCoroutineScope" --type kotlin
# Look for any synchronization in status updates
rg -B 5 -A 10 "setStatus" chat-android/src/main/java/com/ably/chat/RoomStatus.kt
Length of output: 8045
|
Superseded by 5c63ba8 |
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor
Tests