lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits #8142

ItamarYuran · 2024-09-08T08:38:14Z

Added an option to filter merge commits in the log command. The flag --no-merges will filter every commit that has more than one parent and thus also import commits. The implementation concerns only lakectl at the moment. Filtering is done at The server's side similarly to --first-parent flag.

Testing Details

Tested only manually, original test pass (after a slight modification)

Additional info

Contact Details

[email protected]

github-actions · 2024-09-08T08:46:30Z

E2E Test Results - Quickstart

github-actions · 2024-09-08T08:46:33Z

E2E Test Results - DynamoDB Local - Local Block Adapter

itaiad200

Fearful PR in one of the most key areas of Graveler - well done.

In order for me to effectively review this PR, I'm going to request 2 things:

Document the new logic in the commit iterator. It's hard to follow this delicate area logic change without this.
Tests. First it seems that some tests fail in our CI (not sure if these are related or not). Also - commit_iterator needs some testing for the new functionality (perhaps more testing for existing functionality too), lakectl requires tests for the new flag, probably in esti.

cmd/lakectl/cmd/log.go

itaiad200 · 2024-09-11T08:20:51Z

pkg/graveler/ref/commit_iterator.go

+	for ci.queue.Len() > 0 {
+		ci.value = heap.Pop(&ci.queue).(*graveler.CommitRecord)

-	// as long as we have something in the queue we will
-	// set it as the current value and push the current commits parents to the queue
-	ci.value = heap.Pop(&ci.queue).(*graveler.CommitRecord)
-	parents := ci.value.Parents
-	if ci.firstParent && len(parents) > 1 {
-		parents = parents[:1]
-	}
-	for _, p := range parents {
-		// skip commits we already visited
-		if _, visited := ci.visit[p]; visited {
+		if ci.noMerges && len(ci.value.Parents) > 1 {
+			firstParent := ci.value.Parents[0]
+
+			if _, visited := ci.visit[firstParent]; visited {
+				continue
+			}
+
+			rec, err := ci.getCommitRecord(firstParent)
+			if err != nil {
+				ci.value = nil
+				ci.err = err
+				return false
+			}
+			ci.visit[rec.CommitID] = struct{}{}
+
+			if ci.since != nil && rec.Commit.CreationDate.Before(*ci.since) {
+				continue
+			}
+			heap.Push(&ci.queue, rec)
 			continue
 		}

-		rec, err := ci.getCommitRecord(p)
-		if err != nil {
-			ci.value = nil
-			ci.err = err
-			return false
+		parents := ci.value.Parents
+		if ci.firstParent && len(parents) > 1 {
+			parents = parents[:1]
 		}
-		ci.visit[rec.CommitID] = struct{}{}
-
-		// skip commits that are older than since time
-		if ci.since != nil && rec.Commit.CreationDate.Before(*ci.since) {
-			continue
+		for _, p := range parents {
+			if _, visited := ci.visit[p]; visited {
+				continue
+			}
+
+			rec, err := ci.getCommitRecord(p)
+			if err != nil {
+				ci.value = nil
+				ci.err = err
+				return false
+			}
+			ci.visit[rec.CommitID] = struct{}{}
+
+			// skip commits that are older than since time
+			if ci.since != nil && rec.Commit.CreationDate.Before(*ci.since) {
+				continue
+			}
+
+			heap.Push(&ci.queue, rec)
 		}

-		heap.Push(&ci.queue, rec)
+		return true


Impressive - One of the more delicate areas in Graveler and it seems really thought through.

For me, as a reviewer, it's near impossible to follow the logic that is applied here without comments walking me through the decisions taken in every branch of this code.

N-o-Z · 2024-09-11T16:52:23Z

@ItamarYuran please add missing labels to PR

arielshaqed

Blocking about possible incorrectness.
Also this code needs tests, I assume they'll be in the next commit on this PR so I'm blocking but you probably already know why.

With that it is the way, I would not like this code to be in the server, and this is my primary reason to block. A client like lakectl can and should filter on its side. There is no efficiency gain from filtering on the server side, most of the slowness comes from the server needing to iterate over many commits. It is also very easy to perform on the high-level python SDK.
Just iterate over calls to log-commits in the client and filter out commits with >1 parent. It will be simpler code and allow filtering as desired.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-12T05:41:16Z

api/swagger.yml

@@ -3540,6 +3540,11 @@ paths:
          description: if set to true, follow only the first parent upon reaching a merge commit
          schema:
            type: boolean
+        - in: query


Not a fan of parameters with negative names. They're mostly okay as commandline flag, less so in an api.

However here I have no gear alternative to suggest: the default has to remain with merges. If you do have a good alternative I'm very open to suggestions here.

Otherwise let's go with this one! If we keep on having to add flags, we'll anyway need to end up with an expression parser / GraphQL. So I'm willing to wait until we need another flag.

More importantly is why we need an API change if we just want to filter; that appears on the main comment for this review.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-12T05:49:12Z

pkg/graveler/ref/commit_iterator.go

+		if ci.noMerges && len(ci.value.Parents) > 1 {
+			firstParent := ci.value.Parents[0]
+
+			// case parent was visited, continuing.


I don't understand.

Here no-merges implies first-parent. Why? I would expect no-merges to do just one thing.

How does this code work when there are 2 merges one after the other? firstParent Will also be a merge and the code should skip it.

(Related) Just skip the current record of its a merge and keep going. This is a filter operation, let the next iteration do its thing

ItamarYuran · 2024-09-12T16:28:22Z

Thank You all for your reviews.
Completely changed attitude to a client side implementation.

arielshaqed

First of all, I really like this code!

There is some nastiness (an actual tech debt, even a bug) in the original code, that became bad when we add filtering. If you specify --amount (the case amount != 0 on l. 177) then the original code will never return >1000 results, even if amount == 2000. The new code compounds this: if the first page does not contain even amount results, then it will perform a single call. So it will display < amount results. For instance, say I specify --amount=10. Then the code asks for 10 log entries, and displays only those which are not merges. So it will often fail to display exactly 10 results.

I would suggest:

Change the loop to reduce amount by the number of results actually output.
- Exit the loop if we get to amount <= 0.
When setting up initial pagination, ask for amount results if not filtering, or 3*amount results if we are filtering. This is a heuristic: it guesses that at most 2/3 commits will be merges, so it asks for more. But it always works even if it guessed wrong - it just calls lakeFS more times than it could have.

WDYT?

arielshaqed · 2024-09-15T13:59:37Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/log.go

@@ -66,6 +66,19 @@ func (d *dotWriter) Write(commits []apigen.Commit) {
 	}
 }

+// filter merge commits, used for --no-merges flag
+func filterMergeCommits(commits []apigen.Commit) []apigen.Commit {
+	var filteredCommits []apigen.Commit


Suggested change

var filteredCommits []apigen.Commit

filteredCommits := make([]apigen.Commit, 0, len(commits))

This is fairly idiomatic Go for when you know roughly the expected length of the result. It says to reserve space for the same number of commits, but keep the slice itself at length 0.

ItamarYuran · 2024-09-16T14:36:59Z

@arielshaqed As a result of using the heuristic, while using both --no-merges & --amount user would usually get more results than asked

itaiad200

Thanks! Some very good progress here. Besides my comments, we're missing some tests coverage for the new flag

itaiad200 · 2024-09-17T11:54:24Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/common_helpers.go

@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ const (
 const (
 	internalPageSize           = 1000 // when retrieving all records, use this page size under the hood
 	defaultAmountArgumentValue = 100  // when no amount is specified, use this value for the argument
+	maxAmountNoMerges          = 333  // when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit use huristic


Please rephrase, I don't understand what this means and why 333(?!)

cmd/lakectl/cmd/log.go

itaiad200 · 2024-09-17T12:03:25Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/log.go

@@ -100,6 +114,10 @@ var logCmd = &cobra.Command{
 		if amountForPagination <= 0 {
 			amountForPagination = internalPageSize
 		}
+		// case --no-merges & --amount, ask for more results since some will filter out
+		if noMerges && amountForPagination < maxAmountNoMerges {
+			amountForPagination *= 3


Now I get the 333 - it's directly linked to 3. I wonder how our linter doesn't complain about this magic number.

itaiad200 · 2024-09-17T12:12:06Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/log.go

+			// case --no-merges, filter commits and subtract that amount from amount desired
+			if noMerges {
+				data.Commits = filterMergeCommits(data.Commits)
+				amount = amount - (3 * len(data.Commits))


Why is it tripled here?

My thought was that if we use that heuristic, in this way we stay true to it. We asked for three times the amount we needed to get ~1/3 results of that. Updating the amount this way will keep that heuristic in every request.

It's better if we have a single location to handle amount heuristics. Can you try to combine this block and the above one (lines 114-120) into one? Preferably where the loop starts

I was wrong here, works better with subtracting only the original size. subtracting X3 amount caused receiving less results than asked.

N-o-Z · 2024-09-18T00:22:36Z

@ItamarYuran Can we refactor the PR title from: "7441 give an option to hide merge commits in a branch in lakectl"
to "lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits"?
More concise and there's no need to reference the linked issue as we add it in the description

OOO and don't want to block

github-actions · 2024-09-29T10:59:04Z

♻️ PR Preview 91df0b1 has been successfully destroyed since this PR has been closed.

_{🤖 By surge-preview}

ItamarYuran · 2024-09-30T08:05:37Z

@arielshaqed It works! at least it seems like. Failures occurring because of some other reason

arielshaqed

... Failures occurring because of some other reason

Unfortunately all Estis seem to fail at the same spot. If we pull this our CI will break. So it doesn't matter if the bad test code was added here or not, I cannot approve.

What can we do?

First, skip your added test (add t.Skip() at the beginning) and get Esti to run on it again. Does it still fail?

If it stopped failing, we need to look at the added test - or perhaps t.Skip() another test to see if it's just one extra test which breaks everything. If it still fails, we will need to understand why (whether) the trunk fails, and open an issue to fix trunk.

Sorry.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-30T08:32:12Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/common_helpers.go

@@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ const (
 	internalPageSize           = 1000 // when retrieving all records, use this page size under the hood
 	defaultAmountArgumentValue = 100  // when no amount is specified, use this value for the argument

+	// when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit to use huristic.


Nit:

Suggested change

// when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit to use huristic.

// when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit to use heuristic.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-30T08:32:33Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/common_helpers.go

@@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ const (
 	internalPageSize           = 1000 // when retrieving all records, use this page size under the hood
 	defaultAmountArgumentValue = 100  // when no amount is specified, use this value for the argument

+	// when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit to use huristic.


The comment also says "3". So that constant needs to appear here, too.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-30T08:36:09Z

esti/lakectl_test.go

@@ -338,6 +338,59 @@ func TestLakectlMergeAndStrategies(t *testing.T) {
 	RunCmdAndVerifySuccessWithFile(t, Lakectl()+" fs ls lakefs://"+repoName+"/"+featureBranch+"/", false, "lakectl_fs_ls_1_file", vars)
 }

+func TestLakectlLogNoMergesWithCommitsAndMerges(t *testing.T) {
+


Nit: please remove this blank line, it does not aid readability.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-30T08:50:40Z

Note that these runs on master all seem to succeed; I started another one right now, but I would expect it also to succeed.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-30T08:53:13Z

I also re-ran Esti on this branch. This will give us more confidence whether the problem is on trunk or only on this branch.

arielshaqed · 2024-09-30T08:57:55Z

I think this means that Esti actually discovered an issue with the code. It is getting a wrong result when logging after a merge. 🙀

arielshaqed

One last nit found... and we should be done!

arielshaqed · 2024-10-07T13:16:37Z

cmd/lakectl/cmd/log.go

 			}
+			amount -= len(data.Commits)


I think this still prints an incorrect number of commits. Think of the case where you get more commits after filtering than you really needed. Something like data.Commits = data.Commits[:amount] should do the job.

Please also add a test that would fail without this fix.

arielshaqed

Thanks, great feature!

ItamarYuran requested a review from itaiad200 September 8, 2024 08:38

ItamarYuran linked an issue Sep 8, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request

Give an option to hide merge commits in a branch view in the UI #7441

Closed

ItamarYuran added the area/lakectl Issues related to lakeFS' command line interface (lakectl) label Sep 8, 2024

ItamarYuran closed this Sep 8, 2024

ItamarYuran reopened this Sep 8, 2024

ItamarYuran requested a review from arielshaqed September 11, 2024 08:15

itaiad200 requested changes Sep 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

arielshaqed requested changes Sep 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

ItamarYuran added the include-changelog PR description should be included in next release changelog label Sep 12, 2024

fresh start

d2c2a5f

ItamarYuran force-pushed the 7441-give-an-option-to-hide-merge-commits-in-a-branch-view-in-the-ui branch from 91be003 to d2c2a5f Compare September 12, 2024 16:24

arielshaqed requested changes Sep 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

asking for more logs

5b9b954

itaiad200 previously requested changes Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

ItamarYuran changed the title ~~7441 give an option to hide merge commits in a branch in lakectl~~ lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits Sep 18, 2024

ItamarYuran added 5 commits September 26, 2024 12:02

with test

413e130

new test cross your fingers

8578938

sorry for the mess, didn't manage to run tests locally

bdb751a

still testing

3791404

still testing..

90e5605

ItamarYuran marked this pull request as draft September 26, 2024 13:57

ItamarYuran added 2 commits September 29, 2024 12:03

enhanced test

842f365

enhanced test

f009268

please

8d5f948

ItamarYuran added 9 commits September 29, 2024 14:25

going to pass now

8948ecd

if it doesn't work i'll cry, Ariel beware

5cd8b5a

didn't cry, was my fault. eill work now

065bfe4

cross ya fingerz

2fe7125

added tabs

a82f9e9

i used vim for that

3a2dbe3

i used vim for that, again

a9b50cd

i used vim for that, again

d67ddbf

i used vim for that, again

7e18b0d

arielshaqed reviewed Sep 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

fixed --amount

be315e5

ItamarYuran marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2024 10:43

ItamarYuran requested a review from arielshaqed October 7, 2024 07:02

arielshaqed requested changes Oct 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

ItamarYuran added 3 commits October 8, 2024 11:59

accurate amount & tests

b424591

tests need to pass

35e0af6

this time

91df0b1

ItamarYuran requested a review from arielshaqed October 8, 2024 10:55

arielshaqed approved these changes Oct 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

ItamarYuran merged commit d28387c into master Oct 8, 2024
38 checks passed

ItamarYuran deleted the 7441-give-an-option-to-hide-merge-commits-in-a-branch-view-in-the-ui branch October 8, 2024 16:12

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits #8142

lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits #8142

ItamarYuran commented Sep 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

itaiad200 left a comment

itaiad200 Sep 11, 2024

N-o-Z commented Sep 11, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

arielshaqed Sep 12, 2024

arielshaqed Sep 12, 2024

ItamarYuran commented Sep 12, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

arielshaqed Sep 15, 2024

ItamarYuran commented Sep 16, 2024

itaiad200 left a comment

itaiad200 Sep 17, 2024

itaiad200 Sep 17, 2024

itaiad200 Sep 17, 2024

ItamarYuran Sep 17, 2024

itaiad200 Sep 18, 2024

ItamarYuran Sep 18, 2024

N-o-Z commented Sep 18, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ItamarYuran commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

arielshaqed Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

arielshaqed Oct 7, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

	var filteredCommits []apigen.Commit
	filteredCommits := make([]apigen.Commit, 0, len(commits))

	// when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit to use huristic.
	// when using --no-merges & amount, this const is the upper limit to use heuristic.

lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits #8142

lakectl log: add option to filter merge commits #8142

Conversation

ItamarYuran commented Sep 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Testing Details

Additional info

Contact Details

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2024 • edited Loading

E2E Test Results - Quickstart

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2024 • edited Loading

E2E Test Results - DynamoDB Local - Local Block Adapter

itaiad200 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

N-o-Z commented Sep 11, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ItamarYuran commented Sep 12, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ItamarYuran commented Sep 16, 2024

itaiad200 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

N-o-Z commented Sep 18, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 29, 2024 • edited Loading

ItamarYuran commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arielshaqed commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed commented Sep 30, 2024

arielshaqed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arielshaqed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ItamarYuran commented Sep 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading