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

Revert "Skip for-loop alloc in go/vt/discovery/healthcheck.go" #15328

Merged

Conversation

dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

Reverts #15326

I don't think this actually changes any allocation. It moves the definition, but the statement itself does not allocate (it's a nil slice).

Moving it means we could maybe accidentally reuse it later on from a for loop, I think within a loop it's best to keep the declaration as close to the usage as possible.

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 22, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 22, 2024
@dbussink dbussink added Type: Internal Cleanup Component: TabletManager and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Feb 22, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Feb 22, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (e549980) 67.63% compared to head (64498ce) 67.71%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15328      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.63%   67.71%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files        1561     1561              
  Lines      193392   194013     +621     
==========================================
+ Hits       130794   131383     +589     
- Misses      62598    62630      +32     

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

…)"

This reverts commit e549980.

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <[email protected]>
@dbussink dbussink force-pushed the revert-15326-discovery-healthcheck-waitForTablet-allocfix branch from 140906f to 64498ce Compare February 22, 2024 08:40
@dbussink dbussink merged commit ba3531f into main Feb 22, 2024
199 checks passed
@dbussink dbussink deleted the revert-15326-discovery-healthcheck-waitForTablet-allocfix branch February 22, 2024 12:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants