-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
feat: implement rht_pq_map #16
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the great work! I left a few comments, so please check them out.
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your contribution.
- I'm a beginner in Rust now and there is a pattern I'm not familiar with. Please explain the part I commented on. I think @dc7303 and I can learn something new.
- How about implementing this with test codes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your contribution.
(Sorry for the late)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the late review. 🙏
About Test Code
Using smart pointers in Rust can cause errors at runtime. Also, since this data structure deals with an abstract element called Element, it is easy to make mistakes in concrete implementation.
So I think we need some test code for the step now.
(Most of the changes I suggest are issues I discovered while writing the test code.)
So, I wrote a test. And in the case of the actual set()
method, it was confirmed that the intended operation was not performed.
failures:
---- document::json::rht_pq_map::tests::data_handle stdout ----
thread 'document::json::rht_pq_map::tests::data_handle' panicked at 'assertion failed: false', src/document/json/rht_pq_map.rs:387:18
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
How about improving the codes along with the tests based on this test code?
- The MockElement in the test code shared below may seem overdone. If an element such as Primitive is added, MockElement will be replaced with Primitive.
my test code:
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
use crate::document::time::ticket::Ticket;
use crate::document::json::element::Element;
use crate::document::time::actor_id::ActorID;
struct MockElement {
value: u32,
created_at: Ticket,
moved_at: Option<Ticket>,
removed_at: Option<Ticket>,
}
impl MockElement {
fn new(value: u32, created_at: Ticket) -> MockElement {
return MockElement {
value,
created_at,
moved_at: None,
removed_at: None,
}
}
}
impl Element for MockElement {
fn to_string(&self) -> String {
self.value.to_string()
}
fn deepcopy(&self) -> Box<dyn Element> {
let moved_at = match &self.moved_at {
Some(moved_at) => Some(moved_at.clone()),
_ => None,
};
let removed_at = match &self.removed_at {
Some(removed_at) => Some(removed_at.clone()),
_ => None,
};
let element = MockElement {
value: self.value,
created_at: self.created_at.clone(),
moved_at: moved_at,
removed_at: removed_at,
};
Box::new(element)
}
fn created_at(&self) -> Ticket {
self.created_at.clone()
}
fn moved_at(&self) -> Option<Ticket> {
if let Some(moved_at) = &self.moved_at {
return Some(moved_at.clone());
}
None
}
fn set_moved_at(&mut self, ticket: Ticket) {
self.moved_at = Some(ticket);
}
fn removed_at(&self) -> Option<Ticket> {
if let Some(removed_at) = &self.removed_at {
return Some(removed_at.clone());
}
None
}
fn remove(&mut self, ticket: Ticket) -> bool {
if ticket.after(&self.created_at) {
match &self.removed_at {
Some(removed_at) => {
if ticket.after(removed_at) {
self.removed_at = Some(ticket);
return true;
}
},
_ => {
self.removed_at = Some(ticket);
return true;
}
}
}
false
}
}
#[test]
fn data_handle() {
let mut map = RHTPriorityQueueMap::new();
let hex_str = "0123456789abcdef01234567";
let actor_id = ActorID::from_hex(hex_str).unwrap();
let created_at = Ticket::new(0, 0, actor_id);
// set return None
let result = map.set("data".to_string(), Box::new(MockElement::new(1, created_at)));
if let Some(_) = result {
assert!(false);
};
// set return removed element
let created_at = Ticket::new(0, 1, actor_id.clone());
let result = map.set("data".to_string(), Box::new(MockElement::new(2, created_at)));
match result {
Some(element) => assert_eq!(element.to_string(), "2"),
_ => assert!(false),
}
}
}
About generic
The current code is using the Box smart pointer. If you use generics, I think you can make your code look better by not using Box. What do you think?
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongcheol Choe <40932237+dc7303@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for taking my comments into account 🙇
Now that we are ready to test, we can extend our tests. How about extending your tests to test other public methods?
It's also good to add a test case. We need to check that the currently implemented public methods work well.
For example, you can test the has() and delete() methods.
I tested the has() and delete() methods and found that it didn't work as we intended. Below I attach the test code that I have extended.
#[test]
fn data_handle() {
.......
// set return removed element
let created_at = Ticket::new(0, 1, actor_id.clone());
let result = map.set("data".to_string(), MockElement::new(2, created_at));
match result {
Some(element) => assert_eq!(element.to_string(), "1"),
_ => assert!(false),
}
// has data
assert!(map.has("data"));
// delete
let deleted_at = Ticket::new(0, 2, actor_id.clone());
match map.delete("data".to_string(), deleted_at) {
Some(element) => assert_eq!(element.to_string(), "2"),
_ => assert!(false),
}
}
has() Fail log
failures:
---- document::json::rht_pq_map::rht_pq_map_tests::data_handle stdout ----
thread 'document::json::rht_pq_map::rht_pq_map_tests::data_handle' panicked at 'assertion failed: map.has(\"data\")', src/document/json/rht_pq_map.rs:386:9
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
delete() Fail log
failures:
---- document::json::rht_pq_map::rht_pq_map_tests::data_handle stdout ----
thread 'document::json::rht_pq_map::rht_pq_map_tests::data_handle' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
left: `"1"`,
right: `"2"`', src/document/json/rht_pq_map.rs:391:30
What this PR does / why we need it?
What are the relevant tickets?
Fixes #9
Any background context you want to provide?
Checklist