Skip to content

mov repairInvIndex logic and friends from gc to II#6844

Merged
GlenDC merged 15 commits intomasterfrom
patch/MOD-10702-a2-d1
Sep 26, 2025
Merged

mov repairInvIndex logic and friends from gc to II#6844
GlenDC merged 15 commits intomasterfrom
patch/MOD-10702-a2-d1

Conversation

@GlenDC
Copy link
Contributor

@GlenDC GlenDC commented Sep 16, 2025

Describe the changes in the pull request

Continuation of work done for https://redislabs.atlassian.net/browse/MOD-10702 (Implement ForkGc for inverted index in Rust).

Move scan/apply logic specific to II or its internals to II code, in a continued
attempt to keep the II surface touched by fork_gc as abstract and high level as possible.

Closes:

Mark if applicable

  • This PR introduces API changes (NOTE: internal to II / GC only)
  • This PR introduces serialization changes

@GlenDC GlenDC self-assigned this Sep 16, 2025
@GlenDC GlenDC requested a review from chesedo September 17, 2025 08:14
@chesedo chesedo removed the size:L label Sep 17, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@chesedo chesedo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. There is just a single block ref access and number of entries setter left in the fork. I think we'll be able to live with these (esp the block ref access)

@GlenDC
Copy link
Contributor Author

GlenDC commented Sep 17, 2025

Looks good. There is just a single block ref access and number of entries setter left in the fork. I think we'll be able to live with these (esp the block ref access)

Ok so in that case I think we are "done" with the C side of this umbrella fork_gc story, no? And I can move after this to the Rust side?

chesedo
chesedo previously approved these changes Sep 17, 2025
@chesedo
Copy link
Collaborator

chesedo commented Sep 17, 2025

Looks good. There is just a single block ref access and number of entries setter left in the fork. I think we'll be able to live with these (esp the block ref access)

Ok so in that case I think we are "done" with the C side of this umbrella fork_gc story, no? And I can move after this to the Rust side?

Yes, I would say you can start with the Rust side if you did not already

Copy link
Collaborator

@meiravgri meiravgri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!
few small comments

@GlenDC GlenDC marked this pull request as ready for review September 23, 2025 11:59
cursor[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

@GlenDC
Copy link
Contributor Author

GlenDC commented Sep 23, 2025

Feedback from you and cursor resoled AFAIK.
Ready for another round of review / feedback @meiravgri

In meanwhile the Rust work is well under way.
For now we are branching off from this branch.

cursor[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

cursor[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 23, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.44939% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.30%. Comparing base (e017b6c) to head (cc1f5e8).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/inverted_index/inverted_index.c 84.52% 26 Missing ⚠️
src/fork_gc.c 93.67% 5 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6844      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.34%   86.30%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         303      303              
  Lines       48529    48553      +24     
  Branches     9543     9543              
==========================================
+ Hits        41901    41903       +2     
- Misses       6478     6500      +22     
  Partials      150      150              
Flag Coverage Δ
flow 84.56% <40.08%> (-0.23%) ⬇️
unit 51.44% <84.21%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

cursor[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

meiravgri
meiravgri previously approved these changes Sep 25, 2025
@chesedo chesedo enabled auto-merge September 25, 2025 06:43
@chesedo chesedo added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 25, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Sep 25, 2025
@chesedo chesedo added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 25, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Sep 25, 2025
@GlenDC GlenDC added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 25, 2025
Merged via the queue into master with commit f495115 Sep 26, 2025
18 checks passed
@GlenDC GlenDC deleted the patch/MOD-10702-a2-d1 branch September 26, 2025 03:20
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