test(lints): add lint rw::await-in-loop #14013
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
|
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
|
I'll try to eliminate false positive cases in the further PRs. Also I'll fix the true positive cases to improve the performance. |
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
BugenZhao
reviewed
Dec 15, 2023
xxchan
reviewed
Dec 15, 2023
lints/src/await_in_loop.rs
Outdated
| /// This can't be concurrent | ||
| /// | ||
| /// ### Known problems | ||
| /// Ignore it if your loop body must be executed sequentially or if it is not on the critical path. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| /// Ignore it if your loop body must be executed sequentially or if it is not on the critical path. | |
| /// Can cause false positives. | |
| /// | |
| /// It is possible that the loop body must be executed sequentially. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"or if it is not on the critical path." I'm wondering whether the rewriting is beneficial for all situations. 🤔
| // In most cases, a raw `loop` can't be concurrent. | ||
| if !matches!(source, LoopSource::Loop) => | ||
| { | ||
| if !is_from_async_await(ex.span) { |
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
|
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
9 tasks
Co-authored-by: xxchan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #14013 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 68.05% 67.97% -0.09%
==========================================
Files 1536 1536
Lines 265407 265407
==========================================
- Hits 180626 180411 -215
- Misses 84781 84996 +215
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
This PR has been open for 60 days with no activity. Could you please update the status? Feel free to ping a reviewer if you are waiting for review. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.
What's changed and what's your intention?
Inspired by #13970
Found several bugs, also many false positive cases.
Checklist
./risedev check(or alias,./risedev c)Documentation
Release note
If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.