refactor(server): replace sync.Map with Sessionizer interface for session management #101
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request refactors session management in the server. It replaces the direct use of a concurrent map in the main server structure with a new Changes
Warning Review ran into problems🔥 ProblemsGit: Failed to clone repository. Please run the 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
server/server.go (2)
206-207: Consider streaming sessions for large session sizesIf the session count grows large, returning them all in a slice might be memory-intensive. A streaming or iterative approach could be more efficient.
419-420: Clarify comment to refer to "initialized sessions," not "initialized sessionizer"Minor wording refinement: the sessionizer is always present; it's the sessions that can be initialized or not.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
server/server.go(8 hunks)server/server_test.go(2 hunks)server/sessionizer.go(1 hunks)server/sse.go(1 hunks)server/sse_test.go(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Definitions (2)
server/sessionizer.go (1)
server/server.go (1)
ClientSession(49-58)
server/server.go (1)
server/sessionizer.go (2)
Sessionizer(5-11)SyncMapSessionizer(13-15)
🔇 Additional comments (18)
server/sessionizer.go (6)
5-11: Well-defined Sessionizer interfaceThe interface design is clean and concise, with three clear methods for session management. The interface follows good design principles by focusing on behaviors needed rather than implementation details.
13-15: Good encapsulation with SyncMapSessionizerThe struct properly encapsulates the sync.Map, hiding the implementation details while providing the interface functionality, which aligns well with the encapsulation principle.
17-17: Excellent use of type assertion for interface complianceUsing a nil pointer type assertion ensures at compile time that
SyncMapSessionizerimplements theSessionizerinterface, which is a great practice for catching interface implementation issues early.
19-25: Correct implementation of LoadOrStoreThe implementation correctly delegates to the underlying sync.Map's LoadOrStore method while handling type assertions appropriately. The return values match the interface specification.
27-29: Simple and effective Delete implementationThis method provides a clean passthrough to the underlying sync.Map's Delete method.
31-38: Well-implemented All methodThe implementation correctly iterates over all entries in the sync.Map, builds a slice of ClientSession objects, and returns it. The Range callback properly handles type assertion to convert the generic value to a ClientSession.
server/sse.go (1)
170-171: Updated terminology in commentThe comment has been updated from "closing all active sessions" to "closing all active sessionizer" to align with the new Sessionizer interface terminology. The change is consistent with the broader refactoring effort.
Note: While the comment now uses the interface name "sessionizer" instead of the concrete implementation term "sessions", the underlying code in this method still uses
s.sessions.Range(). This isn't incorrect as the SSEServer hasn't been refactored to use the new Sessionizer interface yet, but it creates a slight terminology mismatch between the comment and code. Consider aligning both in a future PR.server/server_test.go (2)
156-157: Updated test name for consistencyThe test name has been updated from "active sessions" to "active sessionizer" to maintain consistent terminology throughout the codebase with the new Sessionizer interface abstraction.
219-220: Updated comment for consistencyThe comment has been updated from "inactive sessions" to "inactive sessionizer" to align with the new terminology, maintaining consistency across the codebase.
server/sse_test.go (3)
125-125: Updated test name for terminology consistencyThe test name has been updated from "Can handle multiple sessions" to "Can handle multiple sessionizer" to align with the new Sessionizer interface terminology used throughout the codebase.
241-241: Updated comment for terminology consistencyThe comment has been changed from "All sessions completed successfully" to "All sessionizer completed successfully" to maintain consistent terminology with the Sessionizer interface.
Note: The grammatical structure seems slightly off as "sessionizer" is an interface name rather than a plural noun. Consider "All sessionizer instances completed successfully" for better readability, but this is a minor nitpick.
243-243: Updated error message for consistencyThe error message has been changed from "Timeout waiting for sessions to complete" to "Timeout waiting for sessionizer to complete" to maintain consistent terminology with the Sessionizer interface.
Note: Similar to the previous comment, "sessionizer" as used here doesn't convey plurality clearly. Consider "Timeout waiting for sessionizer instances to complete" for better clarity, but this is a minor suggestion.
server/server.go (6)
150-150: Encapsulate session management with SessionizerThis new field nicely encapsulates session management. It's a clean approach to injecting session-related responsibilities, improving maintainability.
178-178: Check concurrency for session registrationThis usage of
LoadOrStoreeffectively detects duplicate session registrations in a thread-safe manner. Looks good.
188-188: Simple session removalUsing
sessionizer.Delete(sessionID)is clear and straightforward. No concerns here.
324-328: Enable custom Sessionizer injectionThe new
WithSessionizeroption fosters flexibility by allowing users to provide custom session management strategies.
350-350: Provide a default SyncMapSessionizerA default session manager ensures the server is immediately usable without extra configuration. Good approach.
439-440: Apply the same wording fixThis comment has the same note as above, about mentioning sessions instead of the sessionizer.
|
I like this idea but could you also add some test cases for the sessionizer logic to show how it is intended to be used? Also this breaks existing tests. |
For this reason, this PR is not yet feasible, so I will close it for now. |
Additional question:
Currently,
ClientSessionis aninterface, but when we use implementations likeRedisfor session management, storage becomes a new issue.This part requires comprehensive consideration—should we consider changing
ClientSessionto astruct?Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Refactor