fixed fixme and upgraded error handling #6595
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Pranjali Bhardwaj <[email protected]>
karmada-bot
added
kind/cleanup
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Welcome @PranjaliBhardwaj! It looks like this is your first PR to karmada-io/karmada 🎉 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @PranjaliBhardwaj, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
I've addressed several areas in the pkg/util/proxy/upgrader.go file to enhance the stability and maintainability of the proxy upgrader component. My changes primarily focus on refining error handling to prevent unnecessary logging of expected connection terminations, ensuring robust resource cleanup through proper channel closure, and improving the clarity and correctness of a utility function by handling edge cases and adding documentation. These updates contribute to a more reliable and less noisy proxy operation.
Highlights
- Improved Error Handling and Logging: I've introduced a new helper function,
isExpectedConnectionError, to intelligently filter out common and expected connection closure errors (like "use of closed network connection" or "EOF") from being logged as critical errors. This significantly reduces log noise and helps focus on genuine issues. - Enhanced Resource Cleanup: I've refactored the
tryUpgradefunction to usedefer close()for thewriterCompleteandreaderCompletechannels. This ensures that these channels are always properly closed when the goroutines exit, preventing potential resource leaks or deadlocks. - Code Duplication Fix and Clarity Improvements: I've updated the
singleJoiningSlashutility function. This includes adding explicit handling for empty string inputs and providing clear comments for each case in the switch statement, making the function more robust and easier to understand. The oldFIXMEcomment has also been removed.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
karmada-bot
added
the
size/M
|
all changes are safe and tested. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request improves error handling and resource management in the proxy upgrader. The changes are generally good, using defer for cleanup and centralizing error checking logic. I've identified a minor redundancy in the new isExpectedConnectionError function and suggested a simplification.
| func isExpectedConnectionError(err error) bool { | ||
| if err == nil { | ||
| return false | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| errorMsg := err.Error() | ||
| // Common expected connection errors | ||
| expectedErrors := []string{ | ||
| "use of closed network connection", | ||
| "connection reset by peer", | ||
| "broken pipe", | ||
| "EOF", | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for _, expected := range expectedErrors { | ||
| if strings.Contains(errorMsg, expected) { | ||
| return true | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for io.EOF specifically | ||
| if err == io.EOF { | ||
| return true | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return false | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The check for io.EOF on lines 382-383 is redundant because the expectedErrors slice already contains "EOF". The loop on lines 375-379 will have already returned true if err is io.EOF (since io.EOF.Error() returns "EOF"), making the explicit check unreachable for that case. You can simplify the function by removing the redundant check.
func isExpectedConnectionError(err error) bool {
if err == nil {
return false
}
errorMsg := err.Error()
// Common expected connection errors
expectedErrors := []string{
"use of closed network connection",
"connection reset by peer",
"broken pipe",
"EOF",
}
for _, expected := range expectedErrors {
if strings.Contains(errorMsg, expected) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
|
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6595 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 45.34% 45.31% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 687 687
Lines 56393 56436 +43
==========================================
+ Hits 25571 25573 +2
- Misses 29226 29268 +42
+ Partials 1596 1595 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
@PranjaliBhardwaj Could you please clarify if this is a bug fix? I see you label this PR with |
|
@RainbowMango my bad this pr aligns with documentation and code organization and not exactly a bug fix. i tried to make code more maintainable. |
|
No worries, I will put this into my queue and will take a look. In the meantime, could you address the failing lint checks? Just out of curious, how do you find this? |
|
@RainbowMango Sure sir, actually I was very curious to contribute to Karmada and analyzing project since a long time, thought this would be a good first issue : ) |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes: #6594