refactor: keep batch.Close error handle logic consistance

[lfz941]

Description

This PR includes two changes:

1. The error handling logic of batch.Close() in func deleteRemovedStoreKeys is different from others, which maybe lose the original error info. Let's keep them consistance.
2. Log error info when batch.Close() is error in func flushMetadata

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved error handling during batch closure in the metadata flushing process to prevent silent failures.
  • Enhanced error reporting in the metadata handling process to preserve original error context.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes involve enhancements to error handling in two functions: flushMetadata in the Store struct and deleteRemovedStoreKeys in the MetadataStore struct. The updates ensure that errors during batch closure are properly captured and reported without overwriting previous errors, thereby improving the robustness of the error handling mechanism in the respective functions.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
store/rootmulti/store.go	Enhanced error handling in flushMetadata function to log errors during batch closure.
store/v2/commitment/metadata.go	Modified error handling in deleteRemovedStoreKeys to preserve original error context when closing batch.

Possibly related PRs

• fix(store/v2): error info maybe covered by err = batch.Close() #21727: This PR modifies error handling in the deleteRemovedStoreKeys function, similar to the changes made in the flushMetadata function of the main PR, both focusing on preserving error context during batch operations.
• refactor(store/v2): handle the error returned by batch.Close #21789: This PR enhances error handling related to the batch.Close function, which is directly relevant to the changes made in the main PR regarding error handling in batch operations.

Suggested reviewers

• kocubinski
• cool-develope
• tac0turtle

---

Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between f9ba1b8 and 3ce6972.

Files selected for processing (2)

• store/rootmulti/store.go (1 hunks)
• store/v2/commitment/metadata.go (1 hunks)

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)

• store/rootmulti/store.go
• store/v2/commitment/metadata.go

---

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?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  -- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  -- Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  -- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  -- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  -- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  -- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  -- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  -- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[kocubinski]

these are functionally identical, why the change?

[lfz941]

If batch.Write() returns error and batch.Close() returns error too, the error returned by batch.Write would be covered.

This change just keeps consistant with others: The error returned by batch.Close should be returned when original err is nil