[hermes] Fix concurrency issue #925
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
jayantk
approved these changes
Jun 27, 2023
Contributor
jayantk
left a comment
jayantk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a fine solution to the problem, though it's a little awkward that the storage doesn't work the same for the two different types of values it stores (see inline comment). Not a big deal though, so up to you whether you want to change it.
| /// Store the accumulator state. Please note that this call will replace the | ||
| /// existing accumulator state for the given state's slot. If you wish to | ||
| /// update the accumulator state, use `update_accumulator_state` instead. | ||
| async fn store_accumulator_state(&self, state: AccumulatorState) -> Result<()>; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Couple thoughts on this change:
- is there ever a situation where it's safe to use this
storefunction? Maybe you'd be better off deleting it? - Does the same change need to be done to storing the message_states above? I think the answer is "no", because you never mutate the content of
MessageState. But then it's a little weird that the two types of stored values require different handling. You could make this consistent by splitting out the two components of AccumulatorState and fetching/storing them separately. That would be easy to do if you created a cache abstraction that handled the insertion / eviction logic (which would be good anyway, because i see that code is repeated for messages and accumulator states below).
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with you and David suggested the same. I will do it in another PR. having a proper abstraction for the simple ordered cache makes sense too.
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.
Because of the storage design there was a race condition happening that both wh and pythnet try to store their state in the accumulator state and they ignore the other one because fetch and store are not done together consistently. This PR fixes that by adding
update_accumulator_stateto the Storage interface which takes a callback to apply.