Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for MustObeyClient Module API #1582

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: unstable
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

KarthikSubbarao
Copy link
Member

@KarthikSubbarao KarthikSubbarao commented Jan 18, 2025

This PR adds support for MustObeyClient Module API.

The purpose of this API is for Modules to handle commands / callbacks knowing whether commands are arriving from the primary client or AOF client and should never be rejected.

A use case is that Modules can have validation logic in command handlers which only should be executed on primary nodes. Replica nodes must obey commands replicated.

Will add tests once/if we agree on the use case and syntax of the Module API

Signed-off-by: KarthikSubbarao <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 18, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70.95%. Comparing base (2d0b8e3) to head (c53e3ac).
Report is 4 commits behind head on unstable.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/module.c 25.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable    #1582      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     70.94%   70.95%   +0.01%     
============================================
  Files           121      121              
  Lines         65132    65136       +4     
============================================
+ Hits          46207    46218      +11     
+ Misses        18925    18918       -7     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/module.c 9.61% <25.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

* and should never be rejected.
* Returns 0 otherwise (and also if ctx or if the client is NULL). */
int VM_MustObeyClient(ValkeyModuleCtx *ctx) {
if (!ctx || !ctx->client) return 0;
Copy link
Member

@ranshid ranshid Jan 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My only fear is that it will become confusing since many times the context holds a fake/tmp client which will not be obeyed right? I think this is why in most cases were module API was checking the mustObeyClient it was targeting the server.current_client. Not sure this is a big concern but maybe we should allow somehow to also check the current running client? like int VM_MustObeyCurrentRunningClient()?

Given said that. I do agree fake clients and tmp clients are usually used during background/blocking operations which might not be relevant for AOF/replication flows so maybe we can consider that in the future.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I looked through the code and didn't see any specific examples where we would need to find the real client. Replication from the primary should not block or rely on background behavior.

Comment on lines +3722 to +3724
/* Returns 1 if commands are arriving from the primary client or AOF client
* and should never be rejected.
* Returns 0 otherwise (and also if ctx or if the client is NULL). */
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this documentation is used to generate the public facing docs, I think it would also be useful to document why one would use this. Specifically it should be used for validation that might cause divergence on primaries and replicas (or AOF files).

@madolson madolson added the major-decision-pending Major decision pending by TSC team label Jan 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
major-decision-pending Major decision pending by TSC team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants