Implement auto-rollback #1585
Implement auto-rollback #1585
Conversation
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
10 times, most recently
from
8e5650d to
6b7e58a
Compare
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance the flexibility and functionality of the console application and its associated components. Key modifications include the introduction of a conditional block in the Kubernetes deployment template to allow for additional containers, the addition of uniqueness constraints in Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs), and the implementation of new metrics and telemetry features. Furthermore, several new tests are added to ensure the robustness of the changes, particularly around context history management in pipelines and the enforcement of unique names in configurations. Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 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: 18
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (51)
lib/console/deployments/git/statistics.ex (2)
13-14: Consider adding error handling and documentationWhile the telemetry implementation is correct, consider these improvements:
- Add error handling around telemetry execution
- Document the metrics and their significance
Consider applying this improvement:
def disk() do {count, size} = :ets.tab2list(Briefly.Entry.Dir) |> Enum.map(fn {_pid, dir} -> dir end) |> Enum.reduce({0, 0}, fn dir, {count, size} -> {dc, ds} = Console.df(dir) {count + dc, size + ds} end) + # Report total number of files in the cache :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:file_count), %{total: count}, %{}) + # Report total size of files in bytes :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:file_size), %{total: size}, %{}) + rescue + error -> + Logger.error("Failed to report disk statistics: #{inspect(error)}") + reraise error, __STACKTRACE__ end
Consider adding error handling for directory operations
The implementation of
Console.df/1usesFile.stat!/1andFile.ls!/1which raise exceptions on errors. Since the directories are obtained from an ETS table and could be removed while being processed, the code should handle these potential failures gracefully:
- In
lib/console.ex,df/2uses bang variants (File.stat!/1,File.ls!/1) which can raise exceptions- The caller in
lib/console/deployments/git/statistics.exdoesn't handle these potential exceptionsSuggested changes:
- Replace
File.stat!/1withFile.stat/1- Replace
File.ls!/1withFile.ls/1- Add appropriate error handling for cases where directories are removed or inaccessible
Regarding parallel processing: While
Task.async_stream/3is used in other parts of the codebase, the current sequential implementation is acceptable unless profiling shows it to be a bottleneck, as disk I/O operations may not benefit significantly from parallelization.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
4-11: Verify handling of edge cases and consider performance optimizationThe current implementation might benefit from additional error handling and performance optimization:
- Consider handling cases where directory entries are removed while being processed
- For large number of entries, consider using
Task.async_streamfor parallel processingLet's verify the potential impact:
Let me gather more information about the error handling patterns and the
Console.df/1function:🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for similar patterns in the codebase to understand how ETS table access is typically handled rg -A 5 "tab2list.*Entry\.Dir" # Look for any existing parallel processing patterns ast-grep --pattern 'Task.async_stream($$$)'Length of output: 4336
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of Console.df/1 ast-grep --pattern 'def df($$$)' # Look for error handling patterns with directories rg -A 3 "rescue.*File\."Length of output: 799
priv/repo/migrations/20241113160231_pipeline_context_history.exs (1)
5-11: Consider adding additional indexes for common query patterns.Based on the PR objectives mentioning "maintaining history of service contexts for each stage", it's likely that queries will need to efficiently retrieve history for a specific context.
Consider adding an index on
context_idas well:create table(:pipeline_context_history, primary_key: false) do add :id, :uuid, primary_key: true add :stage_id, references(:pipeline_stages, type: :uuid, on_delete: :delete_all) add :context_id, references(:pipeline_contexts, type: :uuid, on_delete: :delete_all) timestamps() end create index(:pipeline_context_history, [:stage_id]) +create index(:pipeline_context_history, [:context_id])lib/console/deployments/statistics.ex (2)
15-16: Consider optimizing telemetry execution and adding debug loggingThe implementation is correct, but could be improved for maintainability and debugging.
Consider applying these improvements:
+ @empty_metadata %{} # Define at module level defp cluster_stats() do Cluster.stats() |> Console.Repo.one() |> case do %{unhealthy: h, count: c} -> - :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:cluster_count), %{total: c}, %{}) - :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:unhealthy_cluster_count), %{total: h}, %{}) + require Logger + Logger.debug("Recording cluster stats: total=#{c} unhealthy=#{h}") + :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:cluster_count), %{total: c}, @empty_metadata) + :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:unhealthy_cluster_count), %{total: h}, @empty_metadata)
Line range hint
1-30: Overall implementation aligns well with auto-rollback objectivesThe transition to telemetry-based metrics provides a solid foundation for tracking service and cluster health, which is essential for the auto-rollback feature. The implementation is clean and consistent, following a clear pattern for both cluster and service statistics.
Consider these architectural recommendations:
- Document the metric naming convention and purpose in the module documentation
- Consider adding metric labels/tags for better categorization (e.g., by environment, region)
- Add alerting rules based on these metrics to trigger auto-rollback decisions
lib/console/deployments/pubsub/consumers/pipeline.ex (1)
24-24: Consider adding documentation for the revert functionality.While the implementation is correct, adding documentation for the revert behavior would improve maintainability. This is particularly important as it's part of a new auto-rollback feature.
Would you like me to help draft documentation for:
- The revert event handling behavior
- Example usage scenarios
- Integration with the auto-rollback feature
lib/console/prom_ex.ex (1)
30-45: Consider documenting dashboard configurationsWhile the code provides a good structure for adding custom dashboards, it would be beneficial to:
- Document the metrics available in each dashboard
- Add a comment explaining the expected format of custom dashboard JSON files
Add documentation above the dashboards function:
+ @doc """ + Defines the dashboards to be imported into Grafana. + + Each dashboard is defined as a tuple of {:otp_app, "path_to_json"} where: + - :otp_app: The OTP application containing the dashboard JSON + - path_to_json: Path to the dashboard JSON file in the priv directory + + Built-in dashboards provide the following metrics: + - application.json: Application-specific metrics (memory, processes) + - beam.json: BEAM VM metrics (garbage collection, memory usage) + """ @impl true def dashboards dolib/console/schema/pipeline_context_history.ex (1)
20-34: Improve function name clarity and query efficiencyThe
last_contextfunction name is misleading as it actually retrieves the previous context. Consider renaming it toprevious_contextfor better clarity. Additionally, the query could be simplified.Consider this simpler alternative:
-def last_context(query \\ __MODULE__, stage_id, context_id) do - ctx = from(pch in __MODULE__, - where: pch.stage_id == ^stage_id and pch.context_id == ^context_id, - group_by: pch.stage_id, - select: %{id: pch.stage_id, max: max(pch.inserted_at)} - ) - - from(pch in query, - join: lasts in subquery(ctx), - on: pch.stage_id == lasts.id, - where: pch.inserted_at < lasts.max and pch.context_id != ^context_id, - limit: 1, - order_by: [desc: :inserted_at] - ) -end +def previous_context(query \\ __MODULE__, stage_id, context_id) do + from(pch in query, + where: pch.stage_id == ^stage_id and + pch.context_id != ^context_id, + order_by: [desc: :inserted_at], + limit: 1 + ) +endlib/console/deployments/pipelines/discovery.ex (1)
27-27: Add documentation for the revert operation.While the implementation is correct, consider adding documentation to explain:
- The purpose of the revert operation
- When it's triggered
- The expected behavior and side effects
Add documentation above the function:
+ @doc """ + Reverts a pipeline stage to its previous context. + Part of the auto-rollback feature that handles service failures by reverting to a prior service context. + + ## Parameters + - stage: A PipelineStage struct containing the stage to revert + """ def do_revert(%PipelineStage{id: id} = stage), do: StageWorker.revert(worker_shard(id), stage)lib/console/ai/fixer.ex (2)
12-16: Consider enhancing the prompt structure for better AI responses.The prompt could be more specific about response format expectations and contextual requirements. Consider structuring it to:
- Request a specific format for the response (e.g., JSON or markdown)
- Specify whether git commands should be included
- Define how multi-file changes should be presented
- Include context about the auto-rollback feature when relevant
Here's a suggested enhancement:
@prompt """ - Please provide the most straightforward code or configuration change available based on the information I've already provided above to fix this issue. - - Be sure to explicitly state the Git repository and full file names that are needed to change, alongside the complete content of the files that need to be modified. + Please provide the fix in the following format: + 1. Repository: <repository-url> + 2. Files to modify: + - Path: <full-path-to-file> + - Changes: + ``` + <complete-file-content-with-changes> + ``` + 3. Implementation notes: + - Describe any dependencies or side effects + - Mention if changes affect the auto-rollback behavior + - List any required follow-up actions """
Line range hint
12-47: Consider enhancing AI fix recommendations for rollback scenarios.Given that this PR implements auto-rollback functionality, consider extending the module to better support rollback-specific scenarios:
- Add specific prompt instructions for rollback-related fixes
- Include validation for rollback compatibility in the fix recommendations
- Consider adding a new fix type specifically for rollback issues
Would you like assistance in implementing these enhancements?
lib/console/deployments/pubsub/protocols/pipelineable.ex (2)
20-29: LGTM! Consider enhancing the logging.The guard clause and modularization improve the code structure. The function now properly handles both healthy and failed service states, which is essential for the auto-rollback feature.
Consider adding more context to the log messages:
- Logger.info "Kicking any pipelines associated with #{svc.id}" + Logger.info "Kicking pipelines for service #{svc.id} with status #{s}" - Logger.info "Service #{svc.id} has no recent updates" + Logger.info "Skipping service #{svc.id} (status: #{s}) - no recent updates"
35-47: Consider configuration and query optimization improvements.The helper functions are well-structured, but there are opportunities for enhancement:
- The 2-minute threshold could be configurable
- The preload query could be optimized for larger datasets
Consider these improvements:
# Add to your config.exs: +config :console, :service_update_threshold_minutes, 2 # Then modify the recent? function: defp recent?(%Service{updated_at: nil}), do: true defp recent?(%Service{updated_at: uat}) do + threshold = Application.get_env(:console, :service_update_threshold_minutes, 2) Timex.now() - |> Timex.shift(minutes: -2) + |> Timex.shift(minutes: -threshold) |> Timex.before?(uat) end # Optimize the stages query: defp stages(%Service{} = svc) do case Console.Repo.preload(svc, [ + stage_services: from(ss in StageService, select: [:id, :stage_id]) + stage_services: {from(s in Stage, select: [:id, :name]), :stage} ]) do %{stage_services: [_ | _] = ss} -> Enum.map(ss, & &1.stage) _ -> [] end endlib/console/application.ex (1)
45-47: Consider documenting the metrics migration.Since this represents a significant change in the monitoring setup, consider:
- Adding a migration guide for operators
- Documenting any changes needed in monitoring dashboards
- Listing any breaking changes in metric names or formats
Would you like me to help create a migration guide or documentation for the metrics changes?
lib/console/deployments/pipelines/stage_worker.ex (2)
43-54: Fix error message in revert operation.The error message seems to be copied from the context handler and should be updated to reflect the revert operation.
Apply this change:
- Pipelines.add_stage_error(stage, "revert", "Failed to apply stage context with error: #{format_error(err)}") + Pipelines.add_stage_error(stage, "revert", "Failed to revert stage context with error: #{format_error(err)}")Otherwise, the implementation looks good with proper error handling and logging.
25-26: Consider separate timeout values for revert operations.The revert operation currently uses the same 60-second timeout as context operations. Depending on the complexity and scope of revert operations in your system, you might want to consider:
- Using a different timeout value for reverts if they typically take more/less time than context applications
- Making the timeout configurable via application config
Also applies to: 43-54
lib/console/ai/provider/anthropic.ex (2)
Line range hint
1-7: Update module documentationThe
@moduledocshould be updated to include information about:
- The default model being used
- How to override the model via configuration
- Any specific limitations or requirements
@moduledoc """ Implements our basic llm behaviour against the Anthropic api + + Uses claude-3-5-sonnet-latest by default, which can be overridden + through configuration. The model supports up to 8000 tokens per request. """
Line range hint
11-13: Consider configuration improvements for better maintainabilitySeveral values are hardcoded that might benefit from being configurable:
- API version ("2023-06-01")
- Timeout settings (currently :infinity)
- Max tokens (8000)
Consider moving these to a config module or environment variables for easier maintenance and environment-specific tuning. The infinite timeout setting in particular could benefit from a reasonable default with the ability to override.
lib/console/deployments/helm/agent.ex (1)
16-18: Consider enhancing error handling for auto-rollback reliability.Given this module's role in the auto-rollback feature, consider these architectural improvements:
- Make timeouts configurable via application config
- Add telemetry events for timeout occurrences
- Implement circuit breaker pattern for failing repositories
- Add specific error types for timeout vs. other failures
Example configuration approach:
# config/config.exs config :console, Console.Deployments.Helm.Agent, fetch_timeout: {:system, "HELM_FETCH_TIMEOUT", "30000"}, digest_timeout: {:system, "HELM_DIGEST_TIMEOUT", "30000"}This would allow for environment-specific tuning and easier testing.
lib/console/schema/embeds.ex (2)
141-143: LGTM: Well-structured embedded schema for uniqueness validationThe
uniq_byembedded schema is well-designed and properly integrated into the Validation schema. The use ofon_replace: :updateis appropriate for managing updates to existing records.Consider documenting the behavior of each scope level in the module documentation, as this will be crucial for users implementing uniqueness constraints in their configurations.
158-163: Consider a more idiomatic approach to the uniq_changeset functionWhile the implementation is functionally correct, it could be more idiomatic Elixir.
Consider this slightly more idiomatic version:
defp uniq_changeset(model, attrs) do - cast(model, attrs, ~w(scope)a) - |> validate_required(~w(scope)a) + model + |> cast(attrs, ~w(scope)a) + |> validate_required(~w(scope)a) endThis maintains consistency with other changeset functions in the module and follows the pipe-operator pattern more clearly.
charts/console/values.yaml (1)
24-25: Consider adding documentation for additionalContainers.Since this feature enables auto-rollback functionality, it would be helpful to document:
- The purpose and use cases for additionalContainers
- The expected container configuration format
- Example configurations for the auto-rollback use case
Add a comment above the configuration:
console: + # -- Additional containers to be added to the console pod. + # This can be used to implement features like auto-rollback using sidecar containers. + # @default -- null additionalContainers: ~charts/console/templates/deployment.yaml (1)
51-53: Document the new additionalContainers feature.Consider adding documentation that covers:
- Purpose and use cases for additional containers
- Expected schema and validation rules
- Examples of common configurations
- Security best practices and considerations
Would you like me to help create documentation for this feature?
lib/console/deployments/pubsub/recurse.ex (1)
103-110: LGTM! Consider adding error logging.The implementation is well-structured using
withfor proper error handling and efficient data loading. The sequence of operations (preload -> discover -> poll) is logical and maintains data consistency.Consider adding error logging for failed cases:
def process(%{item: %PullRequest{stack_id: id} = pr}) when is_binary(id) do with %PullRequest{stack: %Stack{} = stack} = pr <- Console.Repo.preload(pr, [stack: :repository]), _ <- Discovery.kick(stack.repository), do: Stacks.poll(pr) + else + error -> + Logger.error("Failed to process pull request: #{inspect(error)}") + error endlib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex (2)
64-65: Consider enhancing the telemetry event data.While the basic telemetry implementation is correct, consider these improvements:
- Rename the metric from "count" to "started" or "initialized" for better clarity
- Add timestamp to the metadata for better tracking
- Add error handling around the telemetry execution
Here's a suggested implementation:
- :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:git_agent), %{count: 1}, %{url: repo.url}) + try do + :telemetry.execute( + metric_scope(:git_agent), + %{started: 1}, + %{ + url: repo.url, + timestamp: DateTime.utc_now() + } + ) + rescue + _ -> Logger.warn("Failed to emit git agent init telemetry") + end
Add telemetry documentation and standardize event data
The telemetry implementation needs improvement:
- The module lacks documentation about its telemetry events despite emitting them in
init/1andterminate/2- The same event name
:git_agentis used for different lifecycle events without distinguishing between them- The event data structure is identical in both cases (
%{count: 1}) which doesn't reflect the actual semantics of init vs terminateSuggested changes:
- Add telemetry documentation to
@moduledoc- Use distinct event names:
:git_agent_startedand:git_agent_terminated- Include event-specific metadata (e.g.,
reasonfor termination)🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-1: Document and standardize telemetry events.To improve the telemetry implementation:
- Add module documentation describing the telemetry events and their data structure
- Ensure consistent event naming and metadata across the module
Let's verify the metric scope usage across the codebase:
Let me gather more information about the telemetry events in this module:
Let me check the actual module documentation content and look for any other telemetry-related code in the module:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent metric scope usage # Find all telemetry executions with git_agent scope rg -A 2 "metric_scope\(:git_agent\)" --type elixir # Find all metric scope definitions ast-grep --pattern 'def metric_scope($name) when $name == :git_agent do $$$ end'Length of output: 1130
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find all telemetry executions in the agent module rg -B 2 -A 2 ":telemetry.execute" lib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex # Find any module documentation or telemetry-related docs rg -B 2 "@moduledoc|@doc" lib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex # Find all telemetry event handlers for git_agent rg -B 2 "attach.*git_agent" --type elixirLength of output: 586
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the full module documentation cat lib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex # Find any other telemetry-related code in the module rg -B 2 -A 2 "telemetry|metric" lib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex # Check for any telemetry configuration or setup rg -B 2 -A 2 "telemetry.*config|attach_telemetry" --type elixirLength of output: 7982
test/console/graphql/queries/deployments/pipeline_queries_test.exs (1)
95-118: LGTM! Consider enhancing test coverage with edge cases.The test effectively validates the basic functionality of fetching pipeline context history within a pipeline stage. The implementation follows the established patterns and includes proper RBAC testing.
Consider adding the following test cases to improve coverage:
- Empty context history
- Multiple stages with history
- Pagination edge cases (e.g., when there are more than 5 history entries)
Example enhancement:
test "it handles empty context history in pipeline stage" do user = insert(:user) pipe = insert(:pipeline, read_bindings: [%{user_id: user.id}]) stage = insert(:pipeline_stage, pipeline: pipe) {:ok, %{data: %{"pipeline" => found}}} = run_query(""" query Pipe($id: ID!) { pipeline(id: $id) { id stages { contextHistory(first: 5) { edges { node { id } } } } } } """, %{"id" => pipe.id}, %{current_user: user}) [%{"contextHistory" => found}] = found["stages"] assert Enum.empty?(from_connection(found)) endlib/console/deployments/cron.ex (2)
69-78: Good addition of error handling, consider enhancing recovery capabilities.The addition of error handling for cluster cache warming operations is a good improvement that prevents a single cluster's failure from affecting others. This aligns well with the system's resilience needs, especially important for auto-rollback functionality.
Consider these enhancements:
- Track failed warmups to potentially retry them later
- Add metrics/telemetry for monitoring warm cache failures
Here's a suggested enhancement:
try do Clusters.warm(:cluster_metrics, cluster) Clusters.warm(:nodes, cluster) Clusters.warm(:node_metrics, cluster) Clusters.warm(:api_discovery, cluster) + :telemetry.execute([:console, :cache, :warm, :success], %{}, %{cluster: cluster.handle}) rescue e -> Logger.error "hit error trying to warm node caches for cluster=#{cluster.handle}" Logger.error(Exception.format(:error, e, __STACKTRACE__)) + :telemetry.execute([:console, :cache, :warm, :error], %{}, %{ + cluster: cluster.handle, + error: Exception.message(e) + }) end
Line range hint
1-1: Consider adding context history cleanup.Since this PR implements auto-rollback with context history tracking, consider adding a cron job to clean up old service contexts beyond a certain age to prevent unbounded growth of historical data.
Here's a suggested implementation:
def prune_context_history() do Logger.info "pruning old service context history" # Assuming you have a PipelineContextHistory schema PipelineContextHistory.expired() |> Repo.delete_all() endlib/console/ai/chat.ex (1)
Line range hint
1-391: Consider splitting chat persistence and AI interaction concerns.The module currently handles both chat persistence (thread/message management) and AI interaction (completions/summaries). Consider splitting these into separate modules for better separation of concerns:
Console.AI.ChatPersistence- For thread and message managementConsole.AI.ChatCompletion- For AI interactions and completionsThis would:
- Improve maintainability and testability
- Make the code more modular
- Allow for easier swapping of AI providers or persistence layers
charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml (2)
130-131: Improve property description for clarity.The description "How to determine uniquenss for this field" contains a typo and could be more descriptive.
Consider updating to:
- description: How to determine uniquenss for this field + description: Specifies the scope level at which this configuration field's value must be unique
133-136: Document the scope enum values.The
scopefield's enum values (PROJECTandCLUSTER) would benefit from documentation explaining their implications.Consider adding descriptions for each enum value:
enum: - PROJECT - CLUSTER + description: | + Defines the scope of uniqueness: + * PROJECT - Value must be unique within the project + * CLUSTER - Value must be unique across the entire cluster type: stringgo/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml (1)
129-139: Consider updating documentation for the new uniqueness feature.The
uniqByproperty introduces project and cluster-level uniqueness validation. This should be documented in:
- User documentation explaining how to use this feature
- API documentation detailing the validation behavior at different scopes
Would you like me to help create documentation for this new feature?
plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml (1)
129-139: Consider documenting the uniqueness enforcement strategy.To ensure smooth adoption of this feature, consider:
- Documenting how uniqueness is enforced at different scopes (PROJECT vs CLUSTER)
- Providing migration guidelines for existing resources
- Adding examples in the CRD documentation showing typical use cases
go/controller/api/v1alpha1/prautomation_types.go (1)
465-469: Consider future scope requirementsThe
Scopefield's enum values are currently limited toPROJECTandCLUSTER. Consider if other scopes might be needed in the future (e.g.,NAMESPACE,ORGANIZATION).test/support/factory.ex (1)
755-760: Consider grouping with related pipeline factories.For better code organization, consider moving this factory function near other pipeline-related factories (around line 450 where
pipeline_factory,pipeline_stage_factory, andpipeline_context_factoryare defined).lib/console/graphql/deployments/pipeline.ex (2)
340-347: Add more detailed field descriptions.The object type is well-structured, but could benefit from more detailed field descriptions to improve schema documentation.
Consider adding descriptions to the fields like this:
@desc "A record of a prior pipeline context attached to a stage" object :pipeline_context_history do - field :id, non_null(:id) - field :stage, :pipeline_stage, resolve: dataloader(Deployments) - field :context, :pipeline_context, resolve: dataloader(Deployments) + field :id, non_null(:id), description: "Unique identifier for the context history record" + field :stage, :pipeline_stage, + description: "The pipeline stage this context history belongs to", + resolve: dataloader(Deployments) + field :context, :pipeline_context, + description: "The historical pipeline context that was applied to this stage", + resolve: dataloader(Deployments) timestamps() end
Line range hint
185-352: Consider implementing context history retention policy.The implementation provides a solid foundation for the auto-rollback feature. To ensure optimal performance and resource utilization, consider implementing a retention policy for context history records. This could involve:
- Setting a maximum number of historical contexts per stage
- Implementing automatic cleanup of old context history records
- Adding TTL (Time To Live) for context history records
This would help manage database growth and maintain system performance over time.
test/console/deployments/git_test.exs (2)
355-378: LGTM! Consider strengthening the error message assertion.The test case effectively validates the name duplication check. However, the error message assertion could be more specific.
Consider using a more precise assertion:
- assert err =~ "there is already a project with name" + assert err == "there is already a project with name 'bogus'"
366-369: Consider adding test cases for different validation scenarios.The current test covers the duplicate name case, but consider adding tests for:
- Successful case with non-duplicate names
- Different uniqueness scopes (e.g., CLUSTER scope)
Example test case structure:
test "it allows creation with non-duplicate names" do user = insert(:user) conn = insert(:scm_connection, token: "some-pat") insert(:project, name: "existing") pra = insert(:pr_automation, # ... setup code ... configuration: [ %{name: "second", type: :string, validation: %{uniq_by: %{scope: :project}}} ] ) {:ok, pr} = Git.create_pull_request(%{ "second" => "new-unique-name" }, pra.id, "pr-test", user) assert pr.url == "https://github.com/pr/url" endtest/console/deployments/pipelines_test.exs (1)
269-270: Consider enhancing context history verificationWhile the existence check is valid, consider verifying additional properties of the context history record, such as:
- The correct context is stored
- The timestamp is recent
- The association with the stage is correct
- assert PipelineContextHistory.for_stage(stage.id) |> Console.Repo.exists?() + history = PipelineContextHistory.for_stage(stage.id) |> Console.Repo.one() + assert history + assert history.context_id == ctx.id + assert history.stage_id == stage.id + assert Timex.diff(Timex.now(), history.inserted_at, :minutes) < 1charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml (1)
199-209: Consider documenting uniqueness constraint behavior.While the implementation is solid, it would be beneficial to document:
- How uniqueness is enforced at different scopes
- What happens when uniqueness constraints are violated
- Examples of typical use cases for each scope
Consider adding these details to the description field:
- description: How to determine uniquenss for this field + description: | + How to determine uniqueness for this field. + - PROJECT scope: Ensures uniqueness within a project + - CLUSTER scope: Ensures uniqueness across the entire cluster + + When a uniqueness constraint is violated, the validation will fail with a detailed error message. + + Example: + ```yaml + validation: + uniqBy: + scope: PROJECT # Ensures unique values within each project + ```plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml (1)
199-209: Consider documenting migration steps for existing resources.The addition of the required
uniqByfield in the validation schema might affect existing PrAutomation resources. Consider:
- Adding documentation about migrating existing resources
- Implementing a migration strategy or validation webhook to handle existing resources
lib/console/graphql/deployments/git.ex (1)
593-595: Minor: Inconsistent spacing in field definitions.The spacing between fields in the dependency_management_service object is inconsistent.
Apply this diff to maintain consistent spacing:
- field :id, non_null(:id) - field :connection, :scm_connection, resolve: dataloader(Deployments) - field :service, :service_deployment, resolve: dataloader(Deployments) + field :id, non_null(:id) + field :connection, :scm_connection, resolve: dataloader(Deployments) + field :service, :service_deployment, resolve: dataloader(Deployments)lib/console/deployments/pr/validation.ex (1)
60-61: Handle unexpected scope values inscope_query/1functionCurrently,
scope_query/1does not handle unexpected scope values, which could lead to runtime errors ifscopeis neither:projectnor:cluster.Consider adding a catch-all clause to handle unexpected scopes and provide a helpful error message:
defp scope_query(:project), do: Project defp scope_query(:cluster), do: Cluster defp scope_query(other), do: raise ArgumentError, "Invalid scope: #{inspect(other)}"This ensures that any invalid scope is caught early, improving the robustness of your validation logic.
lib/console/deployments/pipelines.ex (4)
178-182: Avoid variable shadowing ofctx_idto improve code clarityIn the anonymous function for the
:histoperation withinapply_pipeline_context/1, the variablectx_idis shadowed inside thecasestatement. This can lead to confusion and potential bugs.Consider renaming the inner
ctx_idvariable to avoid shadowing:|> case do - %PipelineContextHistory{context_id: ctx_id} -> + %PipelineContextHistory{context_id: previous_ctx_id} -> start_transaction() |> add_operation(:bind, fn _ -> create_context_binding(previous_ctx_id, stage) end) |> add_operation(:apply, fn %{bind: stage} -> apply_pipeline_context(stage) end) |> execute(extract: :apply, timeout: 60_000) _ -> {:error, "no prior context"} end
191-203: Ensure consistent variable usage to prevent confusionSimilarly, in the
revert_pipeline_context/1function, thectx_idvariable is shadowed within thecasestatement. Using distinct variable names enhances readability and maintainability.Update the code to avoid variable shadowing:
|> case do - %PipelineContextHistory{context_id: ctx_id} -> + %PipelineContextHistory{context_id: previous_ctx_id} -> start_transaction() |> add_operation(:bind, fn _ -> create_context_binding(previous_ctx_id, stage) end) |> add_operation(:apply, fn %{bind: stage} -> apply_pipeline_context(stage) end) |> execute(extract: :apply, timeout: 60_000) _ -> {:error, "no prior context"} end
190-211: Update function specifications to accurately reflect return typesThe
revert_pipeline_context/1function can return{:error, String.t()}, but the current@speconly indicatesConsole.error. To improve code clarity and maintain accurate type annotations, update the@specto include all possible return types.Update the function specification as follows:
- @spec revert_pipeline_context(PipelineStage.t) :: {:ok, map} | Console.error + @spec revert_pipeline_context(PipelineStage.t | binary | any) :: {:ok, map} | {:error, String.t()}
210-210: Enhance error message for clarityThe error message
"you cannot revert this stage"may not provide enough context. Consider providing a more descriptive error message to help users understand the issue.For example:
- def revert_pipeline_context(_), do: {:error, "you cannot revert this stage"} + def revert_pipeline_context(_), do: {:error, "Cannot revert: invalid pipeline stage or no applied context to revert."}go/client/models_gen.go (2)
1376-1377: Consider renaming 'UniqBy' to 'UniqueBy' for clarityReplacing 'UniqBy' with 'UniqueBy' would enhance readability and align with standard naming conventions.
Apply this diff:
type ConfigurationValidationAttributes struct { // regex a string value should match Regex *string `json:"regex,omitempty"` // whether the string is json encoded JSON *bool `json:"json,omitempty"` // configuration for name uniqueness - UniqBy *UniqByAttributes `json:"uniqBy,omitempty"` + UniqueBy *UniqueByAttributes `json:"uniqueBy,omitempty"` }Ensure that you also rename the
UniqByAttributestype toUniqueByAttributesand update all references accordingly.
5549-5549: Improve comment clarity by rephrasingConsider rephrasing the comment for better grammar and clarity.
Apply this diff:
- // the scope this name is uniq w/in + // the scope within which this name is unique
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
assets/src/generated/graphql.tsis excluded by!**/generated/**mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (49)
charts/console/templates/deployment.yaml(1 hunks)charts/console/values.yaml(1 hunks)charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml(1 hunks)charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml(1 hunks)config/config.exs(2 hunks)config/prod.exs(1 hunks)config/test.exs(1 hunks)go/client/models_gen.go(5 hunks)go/controller/api/v1alpha1/prautomation_types.go(2 hunks)go/controller/api/v1alpha1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go(2 hunks)go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml(1 hunks)go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml(1 hunks)lib/console/ai/chat.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/ai/fixer.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/ai/provider/anthropic.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/application.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/cron.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex(3 hunks)lib/console/deployments/git/statistics.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/deployments/helm/agent.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/observer/runner.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pipelines.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pipelines/discovery.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pipelines/stage_worker.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pr/validation.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pubsub/consumers/pipeline.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pubsub/protocols/pipelineable.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/pubsub/recurse.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/deployments/statistics.ex(3 hunks)lib/console/graphql/deployments/git.ex(4 hunks)lib/console/graphql/deployments/pipeline.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/graphql/resolvers/deployments/pipeline.ex(2 hunks)lib/console/prom/ecto.ex(0 hunks)lib/console/prom/metrics.ex(0 hunks)lib/console/prom/plugin.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/prom/scraper.ex(0 hunks)lib/console/prom/setup.ex(0 hunks)lib/console/prom_ex.ex(1 hunks)lib/console/schema/embeds.ex(3 hunks)lib/console/schema/pipeline_context_history.ex(1 hunks)mix.exs(3 hunks)plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml(1 hunks)plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml(1 hunks)priv/repo/migrations/20241113160231_pipeline_context_history.exs(1 hunks)schema/schema.graphql(6 hunks)test/console/deployments/git_test.exs(1 hunks)test/console/deployments/pipelines_test.exs(2 hunks)test/console/graphql/queries/deployments/pipeline_queries_test.exs(1 hunks)test/support/factory.ex(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
- lib/console/prom/ecto.ex
- lib/console/prom/metrics.ex
- lib/console/prom/scraper.ex
- lib/console/prom/setup.ex
🔇 Additional comments (63)
lib/console/deployments/git/statistics.ex (1)
2-2: LGTM: Clean import statement
The import is properly scoped to only the required function, following Elixir best practices.
priv/repo/migrations/20241113160231_pipeline_context_history.exs (4)
1-3: LGTM! Module setup follows best practices.
The migration module is properly defined and follows Elixir naming conventions.
13-13: LGTM! Index creation is appropriate.
The index on stage_id will help optimize queries for retrieving history records for a specific stage.
4-14: LGTM! Migration is automatically reversible.
The use of change/0 with standard table and index creation commands ensures that Ecto can automatically handle both forward and rollback migrations.
5-11: Consider the implications of cascade deletes.
The on_delete: :delete_all cascading behavior on both foreign keys means that history records will be automatically deleted when either the stage or context is deleted. While this prevents orphaned records, it might lead to loss of valuable historical data.
Consider if a soft delete strategy might be more appropriate for maintaining audit trails.
✅ Verification successful
The cascade delete strategy is consistent with existing patterns
The on_delete: :delete_all cascade behavior is consistent with the existing history table cluster_restore_history which also uses cascade deletes for its foreign key relationships. This suggests a deliberate architectural decision to treat history tables as tightly coupled with their parent records, where historical entries are not meant to outlive their referenced entities.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are other tables with similar historical data that might have different deletion strategies
rg -l "create table.*history" priv/repo/migrations/
Length of output: 173
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the deletion strategy in other history tables
rg -A 10 "create table.*history" priv/repo/migrations/20240127024051_backup_restore.exs
Length of output: 621
lib/console/deployments/statistics.ex (2)
2-2: Verify metric scope definitions in Console.Prom.Plugin
The metric scopes :cluster_count, :unhealthy_cluster_count, :service_count, and :failed_service_count should be properly defined in the Plugin module.
✅ Verification successful
Metric scopes are properly defined and used correctly
The verification shows that:
- All required metric scopes (
:cluster_count,:unhealthy_cluster_count,:service_count,:failed_service_count) are properly defined inConsole.Prom.Plugin - Each scope follows a consistent naming convention and hierarchy
- The scopes are correctly used in the statistics module for telemetry execution
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify metric scope definitions in Console.Prom.Plugin
# Search for metric scope definitions
ast-grep --pattern 'def metric_scope($name) when $name in [:cluster_count, :unhealthy_cluster_count, :service_count, :failed_service_count] do
$$$
end'
# Backup: Search for any metric_scope function definition
rg -A 5 'def metric_scope'
Length of output: 383
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find metric_scope definitions and usages
# Search for the Plugin module definition and any metric_scope function
rg -U "defmodule.*Console\.Prom\.Plugin|def metric_scope" -A 10
# Search for actual usage of these metric scopes in the statistics module
rg "metric_scope\(:(cluster_count|unhealthy_cluster_count|service_count|failed_service_count)\)" lib/console/deployments/statistics.ex
# Look for telemetry event handlers that might be using these scopes
rg -U "attach_telemetry|handle_event.*(:service_count|:failed_service_count|:cluster_count|:unhealthy_cluster_count)"
Length of output: 1962
26-27: Verify metric collection and consider optimizations
The service metrics implementation follows good practices but should be verified in the monitoring system.
- Apply the same optimizations as suggested for cluster_stats:
defp service_stats() do
Service.stats()
|> Console.Repo.one()
|> case do
%{unhealthy: h, count: c} ->
- :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:service_count), %{total: c}, %{})
- :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:failed_service_count), %{total: h}, %{})
+ require Logger
+ Logger.debug("Recording service stats: total=#{c} failed=#{h}")
+ :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:service_count), %{total: c}, @empty_metadata)
+ :telemetry.execute(metric_scope(:failed_service_count), %{total: h}, @empty_metadata)- Verify metric collection:
✅ Verification successful
Telemetry metrics are properly configured and collected
The verification shows that:
- The metrics are properly integrated with the PromEx telemetry system (lib/console/prom_ex.ex)
- The metric scopes are correctly defined in the Prom Plugin (lib/console/prom/plugin.ex)
- The telemetry events are properly emitted with the correct metric scopes and metadata
- The suggested optimization to use
@empty_metadatais unnecessary as the current implementation using%{}is equivalent
The metrics will be collected and available in the monitoring system as they are properly integrated into the application's telemetry pipeline.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify telemetry handlers are properly attached for these metrics
# Search for telemetry handler attachments
rg -A 5 'attach_telemetry|handle_event.*(:service_count|:failed_service_count|:cluster_count|:unhealthy_cluster_count)'
Length of output: 383
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find telemetry-related code
# Search for telemetry configurations and handlers
rg -l "telemetry"
# Search for metric_scope function definition
ast-grep --pattern 'def metric_scope($_) do
$$$
end'
Length of output: 379
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for telemetry.execute calls
rg ":telemetry.execute" -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 2094
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for telemetry configurations in config files
fd "config.exs|runtime.exs" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 7771
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for PromEx configuration and telemetry handlers
rg -A 10 "PromEx|telemetry_metrics|handle_event" lib/console/
# Check mix.exs for telemetry dependencies
cat mix.exs
Length of output: 15317
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for metric_scope function implementation in statistics files
cat lib/console/deployments/statistics.ex
cat lib/console/deployments/git/statistics.ex
Length of output: 1430
lib/console/deployments/pubsub/consumers/pipeline.ex (1)
15-15: LGTM! Verify event handling integration.
The new pattern match for revert events follows the existing pattern matching structure and maintains consistent flow through the act/1 function.
Let's verify the integration with the broader auto-rollback feature:
✅ Verification successful
Revert event handling is properly integrated across the codebase
The pattern match for revert events is well-integrated with the broader auto-rollback feature:
- Pipeline consumer correctly forwards revert events to Discovery.revert/1
- StageWorker implements revert handling with proper logging and context management
- Protocol defines revert event generation for failed stages
- Pipelines module handles context history for reverts
- Test coverage exists for rollback functionality
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for related revert event handling code
# Expected: Find related event handling and tests for the revert functionality
# Check for related revert handling code
echo "Checking for related revert handling code..."
rg -l "revert.*PipelineStage|handle.*revert" --type elixir
# Check for related tests
echo "Checking for related tests..."
rg -l "test.*revert.*pipeline|test.*rollback" --type elixir test/
Length of output: 611
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the implementation details of revert handling across these files
# Check the revert implementation in the pipeline consumer
echo "=== Pipeline Consumer Implementation ==="
rg "revert.*PipelineStage|handle.*revert" lib/console/deployments/pubsub/consumers/pipeline.ex -A 5
# Check how revert is handled in the Pipelines module
echo -e "\n=== Pipelines Module Implementation ==="
rg "revert.*PipelineStage|handle.*revert" lib/console/deployments/pipelines.ex -A 5
# Check the protocol implementation
echo -e "\n=== Protocol Implementation ==="
rg "revert.*PipelineStage|handle.*revert" lib/console/deployments/pubsub/protocols/pipelineable.ex -A 5
# Check stage worker implementation
echo -e "\n=== Stage Worker Implementation ==="
rg "revert.*PipelineStage|handle.*revert" lib/console/deployments/pipelines/stage_worker.ex -A 5
# Check test coverage
echo -e "\n=== Test Coverage ==="
rg "test.*revert.*pipeline|test.*rollback" test/console/graphql/mutations/deployments/services_mutations_test.exs -A 5
Length of output: 2598
lib/console/prom_ex.ex (3)
1-5: LGTM: Module setup follows best practices
The module definition and PromEx setup are properly configured.
22-27: Verify Grafana datasource configuration
The dashboard is configured to use "plural_console" as the datasource ID. Please ensure this matches your Grafana setup.
Let's check for any datasource configuration in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try searching for more specific patterns related to Grafana configuration and datasources:
Based on the search results, I can now provide a definitive response about the datasource configuration:
The datasource ID "plural_console" is correctly configured
The codebase shows this is the expected datasource ID used throughout the application:
- It's set in
lib/console/prom_ex.exwhich is the main PromEx configuration - The application uses this ID consistently with its Prometheus and Grafana integrations
- The configuration is properly wired up through the deployment templates and environment variables
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Grafana datasource configurations
echo "Checking for datasource configurations:"
rg "datasource" --type yaml --type json
Length of output: 1109
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Grafana and datasource related configurations more broadly
echo "Checking for Grafana configurations:"
rg -i "grafana|prometheus|datasource_id|plural_console" --type yaml --type elixir -A 3
# Also check for any config files specifically
echo -e "\nChecking config files:"
fd "config" --type f --exec rg -i "grafana|prometheus|datasource"
Length of output: 62509
7-19: Verify if additional monitoring plugins are needed
Several monitoring plugins are commented out that might be beneficial:
- Phoenix monitoring (line 12) - Given this is a web application, consider enabling this
- PhoenixLiveView (line 15) - If LiveView is used in the application
- Oban (line 14) - If background job processing is implemented
Let's verify which features are actually used in the application:
✅ Verification successful
Enable Phoenix monitoring plugin and keep other plugins commented
Based on the verification results:
- Phoenix is actively used in the application (found in
lib/console_web/endpoint.exandlib/console_web/console_web.ex), so the Phoenix monitoring plugin should be enabled - LiveView, Oban, and Broadway are referenced only in the
prom_ex.exfile itself (likely just in the commented configuration), and there's no evidence of their actual usage in the codebase - The dependencies in
mix.exsconfirm Phoenix usage but don't show LiveView, Oban, or Broadway as dependencies
Recommendation:
- Uncomment the Phoenix plugin line:
{Plugins.Phoenix, router: ConsoleWeb.Router, endpoint: ConsoleWeb.Endpoint} - Keep other plugins (LiveView, Oban, Broadway) commented as they don't appear to be used in the application
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Phoenix router usage
echo "Checking for Phoenix router usage:"
rg "use Phoenix.Router" -l
# Check for LiveView usage
echo "Checking for LiveView usage:"
rg "use Phoenix.LiveView" -l
# Check for Oban usage
echo "Checking for Oban job definitions:"
rg "use Oban.Worker" -l
Length of output: 1109
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive check for Phoenix, LiveView, and Oban usage
# Check for Phoenix router and endpoint
echo "Checking for Phoenix router and endpoint:"
rg "Phoenix.Router|Phoenix.Endpoint" --type elixir -l
# Check for LiveView related files and imports
echo -e "\nChecking for LiveView usage:"
rg "Phoenix.LiveView|live_view|live_component" --type elixir -l
# Check for Oban configuration and usage
echo -e "\nChecking for Oban configuration and usage:"
rg "Oban|oban" --type elixir -l
# Check for Broadway usage
echo -e "\nChecking for Broadway usage:"
rg "Broadway|broadway" --type elixir -l
# Check mix.exs for these dependencies
echo -e "\nChecking dependencies in mix.exs:"
cat mix.exs
Length of output: 6885
lib/console/deployments/observer/runner.ex (1)
18-18: LGTM: Enhanced error logging
The improved error logging using inspect/1 will provide better visibility into unknown errors.
lib/console/schema/pipeline_context_history.ex (1)
1-4: Add module documentation and verify auto-rollback integration
Please add module documentation explaining:
- The purpose of this module in relation to the auto-rollback feature
- How it tracks and manages pipeline context history
- Example usage in the auto-rollback scenario
Let's verify the auto-rollback integration:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how this module is used in the auto-rollback feature
# Look for references to PipelineContextHistory in the codebase
rg -l "PipelineContextHistory" --type elixir
# Look for auto-rollback related functions
rg "def.*rollback" --type elixirlib/console/deployments/pipelines/discovery.ex (1)
18-20: LGTM! Verify RPC behavior across nodes.
The implementation follows the module's established patterns for distributed operations and correctly handles both local and remote execution scenarios.
Let's verify the RPC behavior across nodes:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the maybe_rpc pattern to ensure complete verification.
RPC implementation verified and consistent
The revert/1 function follows the established pattern used across the codebase for distributed operations:
- It uses the same
maybe_rpcimplementation found in other discovery modules - The function signature and RPC delegation matches other pipeline stage operations (stage/1, context/1)
- Error handling is consistent with other RPC calls in the codebase
- The implementation correctly handles both local execution (via apply/3) and remote calls (via rpc.call/4)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent RPC handling patterns across the codebase
# Look for other RPC calls to ensure consistent error handling
rg -A 2 ':rpc.call' --type elixir
# Check for similar stage operation patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'def $func(%PipelineStage{id: id} = stage),
do: maybe_rpc(id, __MODULE__, $_, [stage])'
Length of output: 1312
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for maybe_rpc implementations and usage patterns
rg -A 5 'maybe_rpc' --type elixir
# Look for similar stage operation functions in the pipeline module
rg -A 2 'def \w+\(%PipelineStage{' lib/console/deployments/pipelines/discovery.ex
Length of output: 4890
lib/console/deployments/pubsub/protocols/pipelineable.ex (1)
31-33: Verify edge cases in the auto-rollback logic.
The implementation looks good but let's ensure it handles all edge cases properly:
- Multiple consecutive failures
- Partial stage failures
- Race conditions between health checks
Let's verify the implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Edge cases are properly handled in the auto-rollback implementation
After reviewing the complete implementation, the edge cases are well-handled:
- Multiple consecutive failures are handled through the
recent?/1function that prevents duplicate processing within a 2-minute window - Race conditions are mitigated by:
- The
recent?/1time-window check - Atomic status transitions (using pattern matching on specific statuses)
- The
- Partial failures are handled safely:
- Empty stage lists return
:ok - All stages in a failed service are mapped to revert actions consistently
- The implementation is stateless and idempotent
- Empty stage lists return
The implementation is robust and includes appropriate safeguards for the mentioned edge cases.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential edge cases in the auto-rollback logic
# Look for tests covering multiple failures
rg -A 5 "test.*multiple.*failures?" test/
# Look for race condition handling
ast-grep --pattern 'test "handles race conditions"'
# Look for partial failure handling
rg -A 5 "partial.*failure" test/
Length of output: 132
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for test cases related to the handle_status function
# Search for test files related to deployments and pubsub
fd "test.*ex$" test/console/deployments/pubsub/
# Look for test cases containing 'status' or 'health'
rg -B 2 -A 5 "test.*status|test.*health" test/console/deployments/pubsub/
# Look for any test files that might test the pipelineable protocol
fd "pipelineable_test.exs?" test/
# If found, examine its contents
fd "pipelineable_test.exs?" test/ -x cat {}
Length of output: 948
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look for the implementation and related code to understand the context better
# Find the pipelineable protocol implementation
fd "pipelineable.ex$" -x cat {}
# Look for any pipeline-related error handling or failure scenarios
rg -B 2 -A 5 "failed|failure|error" lib/console/deployments/pubsub/
# Search for any documentation or specs related to the protocol
rg "@spec|@doc" lib/console/deployments/pubsub/protocols/pipelineable.ex
# Look for any modules that implement this protocol
ast-grep --pattern 'defimpl.*Pipelineable'
Length of output: 3651
lib/console/graphql/resolvers/deployments/pipeline.ex (1)
4-9: LGTM! Clean and well-organized alias structure
The addition of PipelineContextHistory to the schema aliases is consistent with the module's purpose and follows Elixir conventions.
lib/console/deployments/pipelines/stage_worker.ex (1)
25-26: LGTM! Function signature and implementation are consistent.
The new revert/2 function follows the established pattern and includes proper typing with the same timeout value as other similar operations.
Let's verify the usage of this new function across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Function implementation and usage are properly verified
The revert/2 function in StageWorker is correctly used in the Discovery module, following the same pattern as other similar operations (dispatch, context). The implementation:
- Maintains consistent error handling through
maybe_rpc - Uses proper type specifications with
PipelineStagestruct - Follows the established pattern of shard-based worker distribution
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for calls to StageWorker.revert to ensure proper usage
rg "StageWorker\.revert" --type elixir
Length of output: 184
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of do_revert in Discovery module to verify proper usage
rg "do_revert" -A 5 -B 5 --type elixir lib/console/deployments/pipelines/discovery.ex
Length of output: 830
lib/console/ai/provider/anthropic.ex (1)
55-55: Verify Claude model change implications
The change from claude-3-5-haiku-latest to claude-3-5-sonnet-latest as the default model is significant. The Sonnet model offers enhanced capabilities but comes with different pricing and performance characteristics.
Please ensure:
- The application's budget and performance requirements align with the Sonnet model
- Error handling adequately covers potential timeout scenarios (Sonnet may have longer response times)
- Token limits are appropriate (currently set to 8000 tokens)
Consider adding a configuration value for the default model to make it environment-specific.
config/config.exs (2)
63-63: LGTM: Prometheus plugin configuration added.
The addition of Console.Prom.Plugin to the prom_plugins configuration is well-placed and aligns with the telemetry enhancement goals.
133-138: Consider enhancing the PromEx configuration.
While the basic PromEx configuration is in place, it might benefit from additional settings:
- The metrics_server is disabled, which means metrics won't be exposed via HTTP
- No port configuration for metrics endpoint
- No Grafana configuration for metrics visualization
Let's check if there are any other PromEx configurations in the codebase:
Consider adding:
- Metrics server configuration with a designated port
- Grafana configuration if metrics visualization is needed
- Specific metrics groups to collect/drop based on your monitoring needs
lib/console/deployments/helm/agent.ex (1)
16-16: Consider documenting the timeout rationale and handling.
The addition of a 30-second timeout for Helm operations is a good improvement over the default 5-second timeout, especially for large charts or slow network conditions. However, there are a few considerations:
- The timeout value should be documented to explain why 30 seconds was chosen
- The caller should be aware of potential
GenServer.calltimeout errors - This timeout should be consistent with the auto-rollback feature's needs
Consider adding module documentation:
@doc """
Fetches a Helm chart with the specified version.
## Timeout
Uses a 30-second timeout to accommodate large charts and network latency.
Raises GenServer.call timeout error if the operation exceeds this limit.
## Examples
{:ok, file, digest} = Agent.fetch(pid, "mychart", "1.0.0")
"""Let's verify if this timeout is sufficient for typical chart sizes:
Also applies to: 18-18
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
30-second timeout for Helm operations is appropriate and consistent with the codebase
The 30-second timeout for fetch/3 is well-justified based on the evidence:
- The largest Helm charts in the repository are around 363KB (kubernetes-dashboard), which can be safely downloaded within 30 seconds even on slower connections
- Other similar operations in the codebase use comparable timeouts:
- Git operations use the same 30-second timeout (
@timeout 30_000inlib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex) - Helm repository operations use 60-second timeout (found in
go/controller/config/samples/service_deployment_helm.yaml)
- Git operations use the same 30-second timeout (
The timeout value is appropriate for the auto-rollback feature's needs and consistent with similar operations in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check typical chart sizes to validate the 30s timeout
# Look for .tgz files which are typically helm charts
fd -e tgz -x ls -lh {} \; 2>/dev/null
# Look for potential timeout issues in logs
rg -i "timeout|timed? out" .
Length of output: 47957
config/test.exs (1)
44-45: LGTM! Configuration changes look appropriate for test environment.
The addition of prom_plugins: [] alongside grafana_dns is well-structured and follows the expected pattern for test configurations where certain features should be disabled.
lib/console/schema/embeds.ex (2)
103-104: LGTM: Clear and well-defined enum for uniqueness scoping
The UniqScope enum appropriately defines the two levels (project and cluster) at which uniqueness can be enforced, aligning well with the CRD requirements.
Line range hint 103-163: Verify integration with related components
These schema changes implement uniqueness validation, which is part of the auto-rollback feature. Let's verify the integration points.
✅ Verification successful
Integration is properly implemented and tested
The changes are well integrated:
- The
UniqScopeenum and validation are properly implemented inlib/console/schema/embeds.ex - The validation is tested in
test/console/deployments/git_test.exswith test cases covering:- Project-level uniqueness validation
- Error handling for duplicate names
- The validation is enforced through the changeset validation pipeline with
validate_required(~w(scope)a)
The implementation is complete and properly tested, with no issues found in the integration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for related schema usage and test coverage
# Check for usage of UniqScope in tests
echo "Checking for test coverage of UniqScope..."
rg -l "UniqScope" test/
# Check for related configuration schemas
echo "Checking for related configuration schemas..."
fd -e ex -e exs | rg -l "Console\.Schema\.Configuration"
# Check for GraphQL type definitions
echo "Checking for GraphQL type definitions..."
fd -e graphql | xargs rg -l "UniqScope|uniqBy"
Length of output: 440
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the GraphQL schema definition and related resolvers
# Check GraphQL schema definition
echo "Checking GraphQL schema definition..."
cat schema/schema.graphql
# Look for resolver implementations
echo -e "\nChecking resolver implementations..."
rg -l "UniqScope|uniq_by" lib/console/
# Look for any test files that might test validation
echo -e "\nChecking validation tests..."
rg -l "validation.*scope" test/
Length of output: 170635
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the validation implementation and tests
# Check validation implementation
echo "Checking validation implementation..."
cat test/console/deployments/git_test.exs
# Check for any other validation usage
echo -e "\nChecking for other validation usage..."
rg -A 5 "validate_required.*scope" lib/
# Check for any GraphQL mutations that use this validation
echo -e "\nChecking GraphQL mutations..."
rg -l "Condition.*changeset" lib/
Length of output: 24044
config/prod.exs (1)
94-97: Verify Prometheus and Loki service configuration
The configuration assumes Prometheus and Loki services are available at specific Kubernetes DNS names in the 'monitoring' namespace. Let's verify these assumptions.
charts/console/values.yaml (1)
24-25: LGTM! Verify template usage.
The addition of additionalContainers configuration follows good Helm practices and maintains backward compatibility.
Let's verify how this value is used in the deployment template:
✅ Verification successful
Implementation verified and correctly used in deployment template
The additionalContainers value is properly implemented in the deployment template:
- Correctly placed in the containers section of the pod spec
- Uses proper conditional check with
ifstatement - Implements correct YAML indentation using
nindent 6 - Maintains backward compatibility when the value is null
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the deployment template properly handles additionalContainers
# Expected: Should find conditional blocks in deployment.yaml that use .Values.console.additionalContainers
rg -l 'additionalContainers' charts/console/templates/
Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine how additionalContainers is used in the deployment template
rg -A 5 -B 5 'additionalContainers' charts/console/templates/deployment.yaml
Length of output: 509
lib/console/deployments/pubsub/recurse.ex (1)
108-109: Verify repository discovery timing impact.
The Discovery.kick operation is synchronous and might impact the response time of the event handler. Let's verify if there are any long-running repository discoveries.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search revealed multiple usages of Discovery.kick, but we need to understand its implementation to verify if it's synchronous and potentially impacting response times. Let's analyze the implementation and any async patterns used.
Let's try to locate and analyze the Discovery module implementation with different search patterns to understand its behavior.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a conclusive response about the repository discovery timing impact:
Repository discovery is asynchronous and debounced, no timing impact concerns.
The implementation in lib/console/deployments/git/discovery.ex shows that:
- The
kickoperation is debounced (15-second cooldown between pulls) - It uses an Agent-based asynchronous process model
- The actual repository update happens in a separate process via
Agent.kick(pid)
The operation is designed to be non-blocking and won't impact the response time of the event handler. The code follows good practices for handling potentially long-running Git operations.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Discovery.kick usage and timing logs
rg -A 5 "Discovery.*kick" --type elixir
# Search for any existing timing or performance metrics
rg -A 5 "timing|duration.*repository" --type elixir
Length of output: 2327
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the Discovery module implementation to understand its behavior
ast-grep --pattern 'def kick($_) {
$$$
}'
# Also search for any async/task related implementations
rg -A 10 "Task\.|async" --type elixir lib/console/deployments/git/
Length of output: 114
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different pattern to find the Discovery module implementation
fd "discovery.ex" --type f
# And search for the kick function with ripgrep as ast-grep pattern might not match
rg -A 10 "def kick" --type elixir
# Look for any GenServer or async patterns in the Discovery module
rg -A 10 "use Gen|handle_cast" --type elixir
Length of output: 27466
mix.exs (4)
137-137: Verify telemetry upgrade compatibility.
The upgrade of telemetry from 0.4 to 1.0 is a major version bump that might include breaking changes.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for telemetry event handlers and attach calls
rg ":telemetry.attach" --type elixir
# Search for telemetry event executions
rg ":telemetry.execute" --type elixir91-94: Verify integration of new monitoring dependencies with auto-rollback feature.
The addition of monitoring dependencies (prom_ex, telemetry_poller, cowboy_telemetry, telemetry_registry) suggests improved observability. This aligns well with the auto-rollback feature, as it will help track rollback events and their success rates.
Consider adding the following metrics for the auto-rollback feature:
- Rollback attempt count
- Rollback success/failure ratio
- Time taken for rollbacks
- Service recovery time
103-104: Verify HTTP server upgrade impact.
The upgrade of plug_cowboy (2.0 -> 2.7) and addition of cowboy (2.12) are significant version jumps.
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any custom Cowboy-specific code that might need updates
rg "Plug.Cowboy" --type elixir
# Look for any cowboy-specific configurations
rg "cowboy" config/ --type elixirLine range hint 1-167: Critical: Verify removal of Horde dependency.
The removal of the horde dependency (a distributed supervisor library) while implementing auto-rollback functionality needs careful consideration.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining Horde usage that needs to be migrated
rg "Horde" --type elixir
# Look for distributed supervisor implementations
rg "use DynamicSupervisor" --type elixirPlease confirm:
- How is distributed supervision being handled after removing Horde?
- What's the new strategy for maintaining service state across nodes during rollbacks?
- Has the distributed aspect of the auto-rollback feature been considered in the new implementation?
lib/console/deployments/git/agent.ex (1)
11-11: LGTM!
The import is correctly scoped to only the needed function, following Elixir best practices.
lib/console/ai/chat.ex (1)
25-26: LGTM! Verify impact on existing chat titles.
The changes to make chat titles more concise (max 6 words, single-phrase) look good. However, we should verify that existing chat titles won't be affected by this change.
Let's check for any existing chat titles that might exceed the new 6-word limit:
✅ Verification successful
Changes to chat title length are safe to implement
The codebase scan shows that existing chat titles are well within the new 6-word limit:
- Default chat title: "Your primary chat with Plural AI" (6 words)
- Factory test title: "a chat thread" (3 words)
- Chatbot button title: "Further questions about an insight from Plural AI" (8 words, but this is a description field, not a chat title)
Only the chatbot button description exceeds 6 words, but it's a different field (description) and not affected by the @summary attribute's constraints.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for existing chat titles that might exceed the new 6-word limit
# Note: This helps identify if we need a migration for existing data
# Search for chat thread summaries in the codebase
rg -g '!*.{ex,exs}' -l 'summary:'
# Search for potential test cases that might need updating
rg -g '*.{ex,exs}' 'summary:.*\b(\w+\s+){7,}\w+'
Length of output: 480
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of these files to see if they contain chat titles
# that might be affected by the 6-word limit
# Check GraphQL schema definition
echo "=== GraphQL Schema ==="
cat schema/schema.graphql | rg -A 2 'summary:'
# Check React components
echo -e "\n=== ChatbotButton.tsx ==="
cat assets/src/components/ai/chatbot/ChatbotButton.tsx | rg -A 2 'summary:'
echo -e "\n=== AITableActions.tsx ==="
cat assets/src/components/ai/AITableActions.tsx | rg -A 2 'summary:'
# Check test files for chat-related tests
echo -e "\n=== Chat-related tests ==="
rg -g '*.{ex,exs}' 'chat.*summary|summary.*chat'
Length of output: 1330
charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml (1)
129-139: Verify the impact of new uniqueness constraints.
The addition of the uniqBy field introduces uniqueness validation for configuration items. While the schema change looks correct, we should ensure existing CustomStackRun resources won't be affected.
Let's check for any existing CustomStackRun resources that might need updates:
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the existing CustomStackRun resources to better understand the impact. I'll search for any usage of configuration items that might be affected by the new uniqueness constraints.
Let me check one more aspect to understand how the configuration items are structured in the CRD and if there are any existing uniqueness constraints.
Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide a final response about the uniqueness constraints addition:
The uniqBy field addition is safe to proceed with
The new uniqueness constraint schema is a forward-compatible addition that won't affect existing CustomStackRun resources because:
- The field is being added to the configuration items schema which already exists and is well-defined
- No existing CustomStackRun examples in the codebase use any uniqueness-related fields
- The scope enum (PROJECT/CLUSTER) aligns with the existing resource model
The schema change provides a clear validation mechanism for configuration items without breaking existing functionality.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for existing CustomStackRun resources that might be affected by the new schema
# Search for CustomStackRun resources in the codebase
rg -l "kind:\s*CustomStackRun" --type yaml
# Look for configuration field usage in tests or examples
rg -A 5 "configuration:" --type yaml
Length of output: 23333
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for configuration items in CustomStackRun examples and test files
rg -A 10 "items:" --type yaml go/controller/config/samples/deployments_v1alpha1_customstackrun.yaml go/controller/config/samples/pr_automation.yaml
# Check if there are any existing configuration items with similar fields
rg -B 5 -A 10 "type: \w+" --type yaml go/controller/config/samples/
Length of output: 11998
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the configuration items schema in the CRD
rg -B 5 -A 15 "configuration:" charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml
# Look for any existing uniqueness-related fields
rg -l "unique|uniq" --type yaml charts/controller/crds/
Length of output: 2043
go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml (1)
129-139: LGTM! Well-structured schema addition for uniqueness validation.
The new uniqBy property is well-defined with proper validation constraints and clear documentation.
Let's verify if any existing CustomStackRun resources might be affected by this change:
✅ Verification successful
The new uniqBy validation property is safe to add and won't affect existing configurations
The analysis of the codebase shows that:
- The sample CustomStackRun (
go/controller/config/samples/deployments_v1alpha1_customstackrun.yaml) doesn't use any validation configurations, so existing samples won't be affected - The validation property is being added as an optional field within the configuration items schema, as evidenced by the CRD structure
- The scope enum values (PROJECT, CLUSTER) are well-defined and properly constrained
- No existing CustomStackRun resources are using validation configurations that could be impacted by this change
The schema addition is backward compatible and follows Kubernetes CRD best practices by:
- Making the new field optional
- Providing clear documentation
- Using proper validation constraints
- Following the existing schema structure
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for existing CustomStackRun resources with configuration validation
# that might be affected by the new uniqBy property
# Search for CustomStackRun resources with configuration validation
kubectl get customstackruns -A -o json | jq '.items[] | select(.spec.configuration != null) | {name: .metadata.name, namespace: .metadata.namespace, config: .spec.configuration}'
Length of output: 255
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's analyze the codebase for existing usage patterns and tests related to CustomStackRun configurations
# Search for test files and examples containing CustomStackRun configurations
rg -l "CustomStackRun" --type yaml
# Look for any test cases or examples specifically related to configuration validation
rg -A 5 "configuration:" --type yaml
# Check for any documentation files mentioning CustomStackRun
fd -e md -e txt | xargs rg -l "CustomStackRun"
Length of output: 23396
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the sample CustomStackRun and API documentation to understand the existing configuration patterns
# Check the sample CustomStackRun for any configuration validation
cat go/controller/config/samples/deployments_v1alpha1_customstackrun.yaml
# Look at the API documentation
cat go/controller/docs/api.md
# Check for any existing validation patterns in the CRD
rg -A 10 "validation:" go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml
Length of output: 93540
plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml (1)
129-139: LGTM! Well-structured uniqueness constraint implementation.
The addition of the uniqBy field with project/cluster-level scoping provides a robust way to enforce configuration uniqueness. The schema is well-defined with:
- Clear description
- Required
scopefield with proper enum validation - Appropriate placement within the validation structure
Let's verify if there are any existing CustomStackRun resources that might be affected by this new validation:
✅ Verification successful
The uniqBy validation field is consistently defined across CRD instances
After examining the sample CustomStackRun and all CRD definitions in the codebase:
- The sample CustomStackRun doesn't use any configuration items yet, so it won't be affected
- The
uniqByvalidation schema is consistently defined in all CRD instances (console, controller, and charts) - The validation is optional within the configuration items, so existing resources will continue to work
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for existing CustomStackRun resources that might need updates
# Search for CustomStackRun resources in the codebase
rg -l "kind:\s*CustomStackRun" --type yaml
# Look for any configuration validation patterns that might conflict
ast-grep --pattern 'validation:
$$$
uniqBy:
$$$'
Length of output: 381
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of the found CustomStackRun resources to check for any existing configuration patterns
# Check the sample CustomStackRun
echo "=== Sample CustomStackRun ==="
cat go/controller/config/samples/deployments_v1alpha1_customstackrun.yaml
# Check other CRD definitions for any differences
echo -e "\n=== Other CRD definitions ==="
cat go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml
cat charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml
Length of output: 22547
go/controller/api/v1alpha1/prautomation_types.go (2)
459-463: LGTM: Well-structured field addition for uniqueness validation
The new UniqBy field is properly defined with appropriate optionality and type safety.
471-477: LGTM: Proper nil handling and consistent implementation
The Attributes() method follows the established pattern and correctly handles nil cases.
test/support/factory.ex (1)
755-760: LGTM! Factory function follows established patterns.
The new pipeline_context_history_factory is well-structured and consistent with the codebase's factory patterns. It properly builds the required associations for pipeline stage and context, which aligns with the PR's objective of maintaining service context history.
lib/console/graphql/deployments/pipeline.ex (2)
352-352: LGTM! Connection type properly declared.
The connection node type declaration follows the established pattern and enables proper pagination for pipeline context history queries.
185-188: LGTM! Verify resolver implementation.
The connection field is well-structured and follows GraphQL best practices for pagination. The placement in pipeline_stage makes sense for tracking stage-specific context history.
Let's verify the resolver implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Resolver implementation verified and properly structured
The resolver implementation in lib/console/graphql/resolvers/deployments/pipeline.ex is correctly implemented:
- Uses proper pagination with
paginate/2 - Fetches records using
PipelineContextHistory.for_stage/1andordered/1 - Follows schema relationships (stage and context associations)
- Maintains consistent naming and structure
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the resolver function is properly implemented
# Expected: Find the resolver function definition
# Search for the resolver function
rg -A 5 "pipeline_context_history.*fn.*args.*_" "lib/console/graphql/resolvers"
Length of output: 79
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try different search patterns and locations to find the resolver
# Search for pipeline_context_history function in all Elixir files
rg -t elixir "def pipeline_context_history"
# Search for any mentions of pipeline_context_history
rg -t elixir "pipeline_context_history"
# Look specifically in the deployments resolver module if it exists
fd -e ex -t f "deployments.ex" lib/console/graphql/resolvers/
Length of output: 1701
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of the resolver we found
rg -A 10 "def pipeline_context_history" lib/console/graphql/resolvers/deployments/pipeline.ex
# Also check the schema definition to understand the context
rg -A 10 'schema "pipeline_context_history"' lib/console/schema/pipeline_context_history.ex
Length of output: 714
test/console/deployments/git_test.exs (1)
Line range hint 1-1: Missing test coverage for auto-rollback feature.
The PR objectives mention implementing an auto-rollback feature, but there are no tests covering this functionality. Consider adding test cases for:
- Service failure scenarios
- Auto-rollback triggers
- Service context history management
test/console/deployments/pipelines_test.exs (1)
5-5: LGTM: Alias properly added
The PipelineContextHistory alias is well-placed and follows the module's naming conventions.
charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml (2)
199-209: LGTM! Well-structured uniqueness validation implementation.
The new uniqBy property is well-defined with clear scope options and proper validation schema. The implementation follows Kubernetes CRD best practices with:
- Clear description
- Proper enum values for scope (
PROJECT,CLUSTER) - Required field validation
199-209: Verify uniqueness constraint implementation.
Let's verify the implementation of uniqueness constraints in the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Uniqueness constraint implementation is properly defined and integrated
The uniqueness constraint implementation is properly defined in the codebase:
- The CRD correctly defines the
uniqByfield with proper validation incharts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml - The implementation is backed by:
- Type definitions in
go/controller/api/v1alpha1/prautomation_types.gowith proper Kubernetes validation annotations - Generated client models in
go/client/models_gen.gowith complete enum definitions forValidationUniqScope - Proper type conversion methods between API types and client models via the
Attributes()functions - Deep copy implementations for proper Kubernetes type handling
- Type definitions in
The scope-based uniqueness validation (PROJECT/CLUSTER) is consistently implemented across the API definition, CRD, and Go types, making it a robust implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for uniqueness validation implementation and tests
# Check for validation logic implementation
echo "Checking for validation implementation..."
rg -l "uniqBy.*scope" --type go
# Check for test coverage
echo "Checking for test coverage..."
rg -l "TestUniqBy|TestUniqueness" --type go
# Check for validation error handling
echo "Checking for error handling..."
rg "ValidationError.*uniq" --type go
Length of output: 351
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the uniqueness validation implementation
# Search for any mentions of uniqueness in Go files
echo "Searching for uniqueness-related code..."
rg -i "unique|uniq" --type go -A 5
# Look for CRD validation code
echo "Searching for CRD validation code..."
rg "webhook.*validate" --type go -A 5
# Check for any validation logic in the controller
echo "Searching for validation in controller..."
fd -e go -x grep -l "Validate" {}
# Look for the specific struct definition
echo "Looking for struct definition..."
ast-grep --pattern 'type $_ struct {
$$$
UniqBy $_ `json:"uniqBy"`
$$$
}'
Length of output: 12265
go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml (1)
199-209: LGTM! Well-structured uniqueness constraint implementation.
The addition of the uniqBy property with PROJECT/CLUSTER scope is well-implemented with proper OpenAPI v3 schema validation and clear documentation. The implementation follows Kubernetes CRD best practices.
Let's verify the consistency of this change across related CRDs:
✅ Verification successful
The uniqBy property implementation is consistent across CRDs
The verification shows that both PrAutomations and CustomStackRuns CRDs implement the uniqBy property with identical schema validation:
- Same property structure and validation rules
- Consistent enum values (PROJECT/CLUSTER) for scope
- Identical required fields and descriptions
This consistent implementation across related CRDs indicates good schema design and maintainability.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent implementation of uniqBy property across CRDs
# Expected: Similar uniqBy implementation in related CRDs
# Search for other CRDs with similar validation structure
fd -e yaml -e yml . | xargs rg -l "validation.*scope.*PROJECT.*CLUSTER"
# Search for Go types defining this schema
ast-grep --pattern 'type $_ struct {
$$$
UniqBy $_ `json:"uniqBy"`
$$$
}'
Length of output: 155
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find CRD files and uniqBy implementations
# Find all CRD files in the repository
echo "=== CRD Files ==="
fd ".*_crd.*\.ya?ml$" .
# Search for uniqBy in yaml files
echo -e "\n=== UniqBy Usage in YAML ==="
rg -l "uniqBy:" .
# Search for scope with PROJECT/CLUSTER in yaml files
echo -e "\n=== Scope Usage ==="
rg "scope:.*\n.*- PROJECT\n.*- CLUSTER" .
# Look for Go type definitions that might contain UniqBy
echo -e "\n=== Go Type Definitions ==="
fd -e go . | xargs rg "type.*struct.*UniqBy"
Length of output: 1016
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the implementation of uniqBy across the found CRD files
echo "=== PrAutomations CRD Content ==="
rg -A 10 "uniqBy:" ./go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml
echo -e "\n=== CustomStackRuns CRD Content ==="
rg -A 10 "uniqBy:" ./go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_customstackruns.yaml
# Let's also check the Go types that define these CRDs
echo -e "\n=== Go Types with UniqBy ==="
rg -A 5 "UniqBy.*\`json:\"uniqBy\"" .
Length of output: 1369
plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml (1)
199-209: LGTM! Well-structured uniqueness constraint implementation.
The new uniqBy field is properly implemented with:
- Clear description
- Well-defined scope enum (PROJECT/CLUSTER)
- Proper schema validation with required fields
Let's verify the consistency of this uniqueness constraint implementation across other CRDs:
✅ Verification successful
Uniqueness constraint implementation is consistent across CRD files
The uniqBy field implementation is identical in all three CRD files (charts/controller, go/controller, and plural/helm/console), with:
- Same schema structure
- Same scope enum values (PROJECT/CLUSTER)
- Same required fields
- Same description
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent implementation of uniqBy field across CRDs
# Expected: Similar uniqBy field structure in related CRDs
# Search for other CRDs with uniqBy field
rg -U "uniqBy.*scope.*PROJECT.*CLUSTER" "plural/helm/console/crds/*.yaml"
# Search for potential inconsistencies in scope enum values
rg -U "scope.*enum" "plural/helm/console/crds/*.yaml"
Length of output: 275
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the correct path for CRDs
fd ".*_prautomations.yaml$"
# Then search for all CRD files
fd ".*.yaml$" | grep -i "crd"
# Once we find the files, we can check their content
Length of output: 6678
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Now that we found the correct paths, let's check for uniqBy implementations
rg -U "uniqBy.*scope.*PROJECT.*CLUSTER" "charts/controller/crds/*.yaml" "go/controller/config/crd/bases/*.yaml" "plural/helm/console/crds/*.yaml"
# Also check for any scope enums to verify consistency
rg -U "scope:.*enum" "charts/controller/crds/*.yaml" "go/controller/config/crd/bases/*.yaml" "plural/helm/console/crds/*.yaml"
Length of output: 716
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach by checking the content of prautomations CRD files directly
cat charts/controller/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml
cat go/controller/config/crd/bases/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml
cat plural/helm/console/crds/deployments.plural.sh_prautomations.yaml
Length of output: 92070
lib/console/graphql/deployments/git.ex (3)
15-30: LGTM! Consistent formatting of ecto_enum declarations.
The alignment of ecto_enum declarations improves code readability.
Line range hint 580-589: LGTM! Clean implementation of webhook URL and name resolution.
The implementation properly uses lazy resolution for webhook URLs and names, with clear documentation.
186-193: LGTM! Well-structured validation fields with clear documentation.
The new validation fields provide comprehensive configuration validation capabilities. Let's verify the usage of these validation fields across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Validation fields are properly implemented and used across the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The validation fields are correctly implemented in
lib/console/deployments/pr/validation.exwith proper handling for:- JSON validation with error messages
- Regex pattern matching with error feedback
- Uniqueness validation with scoping
- Test coverage exists in
test/console/deployments/git_test.exsdemonstrating usage of these validations - The fields are also referenced in GraphQL queries (
lib/console/plural/queries.ex)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check usage of validation fields in configurations
# Test: Search for usage of validation fields in configuration contexts
rg -A 5 'validation.*\b(regex|json|uniq_by)\b' --type elixir
Length of output: 4105
go/controller/api/v1alpha1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go (2)
3597-3601: LGTM: Correct deepcopy implementation for UniqBy field
The deepcopy implementation for the UniqBy field in PrAutomationConfigurationValidation follows the standard pattern for pointer fields and is correctly generated.
3934-3948: LGTM: Correct deepcopy implementation for PrAutomationUniqBy type
The DeepCopyInto and DeepCopy methods for the new PrAutomationUniqBy type are correctly implemented following the standard deepcopy pattern for simple types.
lib/console/deployments/pr/validation.ex (1)
2-3: Addition of necessary aliases
The aliases for Console.Repo, Project, and Cluster are appropriately added for use in the new validation logic.
lib/console/deployments/pipelines.ex (1)
21-21: Alias addition for PipelineContextHistory is appropriate
Adding PipelineContextHistory to the list of aliases ensures that the module can be referenced succinctly throughout the code.
schema/schema.graphql (7)
3216-3217: Addition of contextHistory field to PipelineStage is appropriate
The new field contextHistory allows retrieval of historical pipeline contexts associated with a stage, enhancing tracking capabilities. The use of pagination parameters (after, first, before, last) and returning a connection type aligns with GraphQL best practices.
3431-3439: Definition of PipelineContextHistory type is correct
The PipelineContextHistory type includes necessary fields—id, stage, context, insertedAt, and updatedAt—which are appropriate for capturing historical context data of pipeline stages.
3455-3459: PipelineContextHistoryConnection conforms to Relay specifications
The connection type PipelineContextHistoryConnection includes pageInfo and edges, correctly facilitating pagination as per the GraphQL Relay pattern.
8224-8228: Definition of PipelineContextHistoryEdge is properly structured
The PipelineContextHistoryEdge type includes the necessary node and cursor fields, conforming to pagination requirements and ensuring smooth client navigation through data.
5090-5094: Enum ValidationUniqScope is well-defined
The ValidationUniqScope enum provides clear scope options with PROJECT and CLUSTER, enabling precise uniqueness constraints in validations.
5356-5359: Inclusion of uniqBy enhances validation capabilities
Adding the uniqBy field to ConfigurationValidationAttributes allows specifying uniqueness constraints, improving data integrity by enforcing name uniqueness within a defined scope.
5361-5364: UniqByAttributes input type is appropriately defined
The UniqByAttributes input type correctly specifies the scope field with a non-nullable ValidationUniqScope enum, facilitating scope-specific uniqueness enforcement.
go/client/models_gen.go (2)
3417-3434: Addition of 'PipelineContextHistory' structs is well-structured
The introduction of PipelineContextHistory, PipelineContextHistoryConnection, and PipelineContextHistoryEdge types is correctly implemented and follows Go conventions.
3537-3537: Ensure proper initialization of 'ContextHistory' in 'PipelineStage'
The new ContextHistory field in PipelineStage is added appropriately. Please verify that all instances of PipelineStage properly initialize the ContextHistory field to prevent potential nil pointer dereferences.
Run the following script to check for PipelineStage initializations without ContextHistory:
| err -> | ||
| Logger.error "unknown observer error: #{err}" | ||
| Logger.error "unknown observer error: #{inspect(err)}" | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider consistent error handling for unknown errors
While the logging improvement is good, unknown errors are handled differently from poll and action errors. Consider updating the observer's error state for unknown errors as well.
Consider this change:
err ->
Logger.error "unknown observer error: #{inspect(err)}"
+ add_error(observer, "unknown", err)This ensures:
- Consistent error handling across all error types
- Error history is preserved in the database
- Better observability of error states
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| err -> | |
| Logger.error "unknown observer error: #{err}" | |
| Logger.error "unknown observer error: #{inspect(err)}" | |
| end | |
| err -> | |
| Logger.error "unknown observer error: #{inspect(err)}" | |
| add_error(observer, "unknown", err) | |
| end |
| defp do_validate(%Configuration{type: :string, validation: %Validation{regex: r}}, val) | ||
| when is_binary(r) and is_binary(val) do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect interpolation of runtime variable in regex sigil
Interpolating a runtime variable r into the regex sigil ~r/#{r}/ is invalid in Elixir. Sigils are expanded at compile time, and runtime interpolation is not allowed, which will lead to a compilation error.
To fix this issue, use Regex.compile/1 and Regex.match?/2 functions to handle dynamic regex patterns:
case Regex.match?(Regex.compile!(r), val) do
true -> :ok
false -> {:error, "value #{val} does not match regex #{r}"}
endThis approach safely compiles the regex at runtime and performs the match against val.
| description: "The total number of clusters managed by this instance.", | ||
| measurement: :total | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct duplicate metric descriptions for 'unhealthy_cluster_count' and 'failed_service_count'
The descriptions for unhealthy_cluster_count and failed_service_count are identical to their healthy counterparts. They should accurately reflect the metrics they represent.
Apply the following diff to correct the descriptions:
last_value(
[:cluster, :count],
event_name: metric_scope(:cluster_count),
description: "The total number of clusters managed by this instance.",
measurement: :total
),
last_value(
[:unhealthy, :cluster, :count],
event_name: metric_scope(:unhealthy_cluster_count),
- description: "The total number of clusters managed by this instance.",
+ description: "The total number of **unhealthy** clusters managed by this instance.",
measurement: :total
),
last_value(
[:service, :count],
event_name: metric_scope(:service_count),
description: "The total number of services managed by this instance.",
measurement: :total
),
last_value(
[:failed, :service, :count],
event_name: metric_scope(:failed_service_count),
- description: "The total number of services managed by this instance.",
+ description: "The total number of **failed** services managed by this instance.",
measurement: :total
),Also applies to: 53-55, 59-61, 65-67
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
from
a9d7f9b to
da4c859
Compare
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a20a495 to
3d0670c
Compare
Handle service failures by auto-rollback to a prior service context (also persist service context history per stage)
nif Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
from
3d0670c to
02ae471
Compare
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cdeba72 to
8308916
Compare
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4591b6b to
2f95b54
Compare
michaeljguarino
force-pushed
the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
from
2f95b54 to
e4cd354
Compare
michaeljguarino
deleted the
mjg/prod-2887-pipeline-auto-rollback-apis
branch
Handle service failures by auto-rollback to a prior service context (also persist service context history per stage)
Test Plan
unit tests
Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
CustomStackRunandPrAutomation.PipelineContextHistoryschema.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores