✨ add lazy sequence support for delayed promises #10
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces various modifications across multiple files in the codebase. Key changes include reorganization of import statements, removal of specific control flow statements (such as Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant Promise
participant NextFunc
Caller->>Promise: Create Promise
Promise->>NextFunc: Create Next Function
NextFunc->>Promise: Return Next Function
Promise->>Caller: Return Promise
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 (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅ @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.29% 98.29%
=======================================
Files 23 23
Lines 6561 6579 +18
=======================================
+ Hits 6449 6467 +18
Misses 81 81
Partials 31 31
|
ccamel
force-pushed
the
feat/delay-seq
branch
from
6ff1ef7 to
7eaf42d
Compare
ccamel
changed the title
promise.DelaySeq function
ccamel
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
engine/builtin.go (1)
Line range hint
2844-2954: Approve with suggestions: NewLengthfunction implementation.The new
Lengthfunction is a comprehensive implementation for determining the length of a list in Prolog. It handles various cases including partial lists, non-lists, and potential infinite lists. This aligns well with the PR objectives of improving the management of sequential execution.Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding more inline comments to explain the complex logic, especially in the main
switchstatement.- The error handling for
resourceFiniteMemorymight benefit from a brief explanation of when and why this error could occur.Overall, this is a solid implementation that seems to address many edge cases. Good job!
engine/promise_test.go (1)
77-114: Add comments to clarify complex test logic for better readabilityThe test function contains intricate logic within nested functions and test cases. Adding explanatory comments would enhance readability and maintainability. Consider detailing:
- The purpose and flow of the
NextFunc, and how it generates promise functions.- The reasoning behind the condition
v%((v%4)+1) == 0.- How the expected
wantOkandwantResvalues are derived for each test case.engine/promise.go (1)
36-36: Clarify the documentation comment for theDelayfunctionThe current comment:
// Should be used with reasonable quantity of k, otherwise prefer DelaySeq.could be rephrased for better clarity. Consider:
// Use `Delay` when the number of promise functions (`k`) is small. // For larger sequences, prefer using `DelaySeq` to avoid performance issues.This makes it clearer when to use
DelayversusDelaySeq.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- engine/builtin.go (3 hunks)
- engine/lexer.go (0 hunks)
- engine/parser.go (1 hunks)
- engine/promise.go (6 hunks)
- engine/promise_test.go (2 hunks)
- engine/term.go (1 hunks)
- engine/text.go (2 hunks)
- interpreter.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (1)
- engine/lexer.go
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
interpreter.go (1)
Learnt from: bdeneux PR: axone-protocol/prolog#3 File: interpreter.go:20-20 Timestamp: 2024-07-16T12:32:15.725Z Learning: The `loaded` field in the `Interpreter` struct of the `interpreter.go` file is retained despite being currently unused because it was added by the original author of the library and might be used in future updates.
🔇 Additional comments (10)
engine/term.go (3)
7-8: LGTM: Import statement repositioned.The
orderedmapimport has been moved and an empty line added for better organization. This change doesn't affect functionality and improves code readability.
Line range hint
1-144: Summary of changes in engine/term.go
- The
orderedmapimport has been repositioned for better organization.- The
prefixMinusfield has reportedly been removed from theWriteOptionsstruct, but this change is not visible in the provided code and requires verification.These changes appear to be minor refactoring efforts. However, please ensure that the removal of
prefixMinus(if confirmed) doesn't negatively impact the functionality of theWriteOptionsstruct or any dependent code.
Line range hint
22-33: Verify the removal ofprefixMinusfield and its impact.The AI summary mentions the removal of the
prefixMinusfield from theWriteOptionsstruct, but this change is not visible in the provided code. Please confirm if this field has indeed been removed.If confirmed, ensure that:
- All references to
prefixMinushave been removed or updated throughout the codebase.- The removal doesn't negatively impact the writing or formatting of terms.
- Any logic that depended on
prefixMinushas been appropriately adjusted.To verify the removal and its impact, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: The
prefixMinusfield has been successfully removed fromWriteOptions. No remaining references or impacts were found.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the removal of prefixMinus and check for any remaining references # Test 1: Check if prefixMinus is still present in WriteOptions echo "Test 1: Checking for prefixMinus in WriteOptions" ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'type WriteOptions struct { $$$ prefixMinus $_ $$$ }' # Test 2: Search for any remaining references to prefixMinus echo "Test 2: Searching for references to prefixMinus" rg 'prefixMinus' --type go # Test 3: Check for any recent commits mentioning prefixMinus echo "Test 3: Checking recent commits" git log -n 5 --grep="prefixMinus"Length of output: 436
engine/text.go (1)
114-114: Approved: Removal of unused variable assignmentThis change removes the assignment of the unused
argvariable, which is a good practice for code cleanliness. The modification doesn't affect the logic of the function, as the second return value frompiArgwas apparently not used in the subsequent code.interpreter.go (3)
Line range hint
1-13: LGTM: Import statement reorganization.The reorganization of import statements and the addition of an empty line after them improve code readability and align with Go's standard formatting practices.
Line range hint
1-300: Summary and request for additional contextThe changes in this file are minimal, primarily involving the reorganization of import statements and the removal of the
loadedfield from theInterpreterstruct. While these changes improve code cleanliness, they don't directly relate to the PR objectives of adding lazy sequence support for delayed promises.Could you please provide more context on how these changes contribute to the overall goal of the PR? Are there other files where the main functionality changes (e.g., the introduction of
DelaySeq) are implemented?To get a better understanding of the changes across the codebase, please run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # List all modified files in this PR git diff --name-only origin/main # Search for the new DelaySeq function rg --type go 'func.*DelaySeq'This will help us identify where the main changes for lazy sequence support are implemented.
Line range hint
18-21: Please clarify the removal of theloadedfield.The
loadedfield has been removed from theInterpreterstruct. While removing unused fields generally improves code cleanliness, a previous learning note indicated that this field was retained for potential future use. Could you please clarify:
- The reasoning behind removing this field now?
- How does this removal relate to the introduction of lazy sequence support mentioned in the PR objectives?
- Are there any potential impacts on existing or planned functionality?
To ensure this change doesn't affect other parts of the codebase, please run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Removal of
loadedfield verified.The
loadedfield has been successfully removed from theInterpreterstruct, and no references to it exist in the codebase. This removal enhances code cleanliness and does not impact current or planned functionality.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any references to the 'loaded' field in the Interpreter struct rg --type go 'Interpreter.*loaded'Length of output: 271
engine/parser.go (2)
12-13: LGTM: Import statement reorganizationThe relocation of the
orderedmapimport statement is a minor change that improves code organization without affecting functionality.
Line range hint
1024-1097: Verify the impact of removing thebreakstatementThe AI summary mentions the removal of a
breakstatement from theterm0function. However, this change is not visible in the provided code snippet. The removal of abreakstatement can significantly alter the control flow of a function.Please provide more context about this change, including:
- The exact location of the removed
breakstatement.- The reasoning behind its removal.
- Any compensating changes made to ensure the function still behaves as expected.
Additionally, it's crucial to verify that the
term0function still operates correctly after this change.To help verify the change, you can run the following script to compare the old and new versions of the
term0function:This script will show the differences between the old and new versions of the
term0function, helping to identify the removedbreakstatement and any other changes.engine/builtin.go (1)
2430-2430: LGTM: Simplified stream appending.This change simplifies the code by directly appending all elements from
vm.streams.elemsto thestreamsslice. It's a good optimization that doesn't alter the underlying logic or functionality.
Purpose
Introduces the
DelaySeqfunction to enhance the management of sequential execution of promise functions through a lazy, pull-based technique.Rationale
Currently, the
Delayfunction executes promise functions by iterating over a variadic slice. While this approach works well for a small number of promises, it can cause performance degradation and increased memory consumption when handling larger sequences. This issue might arise for instance when implementing native predicates that traverse solution spaces in databases -and more specifically, in the case of axone, when we query the state of the blockchain-, potentially generating a vast number of alternatives.Implementation details
The
DelaySeqfunction is implemented using a very and minimal pull mechanism based on a single function. This design enables clients to create an on-demand promise generator in a straightforward and efficient way. The impact of the change is also very slight and limited to theengine/promisefile.why Not Use Go 1.23 iterators?
Go 1.23 iterators operate on a push model, which inverts the control flow compared to the pull-based strategy used here. Although Go provides a mechanism to convert push-style iterators into pull-style ones, this comes with several implications. First, it creates a goroutine under the hood, and second, a cleanup mechanism must absolutely be called to prevent resource leaks. This makes it quite tricky to use in implementing promises in this context.