vrajat commented on code in PR #15388: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/15388#discussion_r2057524176
########## pinot-query-planner/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/query/routing/table/TableRouteProvider.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +/** + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.pinot.query.routing.table; + +import org.apache.pinot.common.config.provider.TableCache; +import org.apache.pinot.common.request.BrokerRequest; +import org.apache.pinot.core.routing.RoutingManager; +import org.apache.pinot.core.transport.ImplicitHybridTableRouteInfo; +import org.apache.pinot.core.transport.TableRouteInfo; + + +/** + * The TableRoute interface provides the metadata required to route query execution to servers. The important sources + * of the metadata are table config, broker routing information and the broker request. + */ +public interface TableRouteProvider { + ImplicitHybridTableRouteInfo getTableRouteInfo(String tableName, TableCache tableCache, Review Comment: (please let me rant a bit :) ) The split into 3 pieces is by design. I have spent 90% of the effort to understand this function and surgically move the workflow in and out of these 3 parts (Also moving out compile & the failed attempt at https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/15240) The two major issues are: * This function is a monster with spaghetti like workflow and a decade of assumptions and organic growth. * There are no unit tests. I have tried to reduce the impact of the refactor in two ways: * Only rewrite code that is required. Code untouched is code not broken. * Add *lots* of tests for the code I did refactor. I have written or generated 200 unit tests for `getTableRouteInfo()` and `calculateRoutes()`. I have definitely broken something. With the new test framework I should be able to quickly reproduce and add a test so that modifications wont lead to repeated mistakes. If I had to move the rest of the code, I will have to put the same effort to test it. I dont see the value in that at this moment. While the split into 3 parts may not look great from an absolute code quality review, IMO this is much better than the previous state. Two critical parts have clean separations, has a test framework and has a good canon of tests. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
