feat: Rerouted DirectRow.commit to use MutateRow #1276
Conversation
product-auto-label
bot
added
the
api: bigtable
Summary of ChangesHello @gkevinzheng, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request refactors the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request successfully reroutes DirectRow.commit to use MutateRow as intended, which simplifies the mutation process for single rows. The changes in google/cloud/bigtable/row.py correctly implement the new API call and handle exceptions by converting them into status_pb2.Status objects. The system and unit tests have been appropriately updated to reflect these changes, including new tests for DirectRow.commit and adjustments to error handling tests. However, there's an inconsistency in mutation validation strategy across Row subclasses. While DirectRow.commit now relies on the underlying gRPC client for validating empty mutation lists and MAX_MUTATIONS, ConditionalRow.commit still performs these checks client-side. This difference could lead to varied error behaviors and should be addressed for better maintainability and predictability.
| try: | ||
| self._table._table_impl.mutate_row(self.row_key, self._get_mutations()) | ||
| return status_pb2.Status() | ||
| except GoogleAPICallError as e: | ||
| # If the RPC call returns an error, extract the error into a status object, if possible. | ||
| return status_pb2.Status( | ||
| code=e.grpc_status_code.value[0] | ||
| if e.grpc_status_code is not None | ||
| else code_pb2.UNKNOWN, | ||
| message=e.message, | ||
| details=e.details, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The DirectRow.commit method now relies on the underlying _table_impl.mutate_row to validate the number of mutations and handle empty mutation lists. This is a change from the previous client-side validation for MAX_MUTATIONS. However, ConditionalRow.commit (lines 591-602 in the full file) still performs client-side checks for MAX_MUTATIONS and returns early for empty mutation lists. This inconsistency in validation strategy across Row subclasses could lead to varied error behaviors and should be addressed for better maintainability and predictability. Consider aligning the validation approach for ConditionalRow.commit with DirectRow.commit, or reintroducing explicit client-side validation in DirectRow.commit if that is the desired behavior for all Row types.
| # Not having any mutations gives a ValueError enforced on the client side. | ||
| row.clear() | ||
| with pytest.raises(InvalidArgument): | ||
| with pytest.raises(ValueError): | ||
| row.commit() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comment on line 1095 states, "Not having any mutations gives a ValueError enforced on the client side." However, the DirectRow.commit method in google/cloud/bigtable/row.py does not explicitly contain this validation logic; it relies on the underlying _table_impl.mutate_row call to raise an error for empty mutations. To ensure the comment accurately reflects the code's behavior, either add explicit client-side validation for empty mutations within DirectRow.commit (for consistency with ConditionalRow.commit), or update this comment to clarify that the ValueError originates from the underlying API client.
gkevinzheng
added
the
kokoro:force-run
yoshi-kokoro
removed
the
kokoro:force-run
google/cloud/bigtable/row.py
Outdated
| return response[0] | ||
| try: | ||
| self._table._table_impl.mutate_row(self.row_key, self._get_mutations()) | ||
| return status_pb2.Status() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Conisder this for clarity
| return status_pb2.Status() | |
| return status_pb2.Status(code_pb2.OK) |
|
|
||
| return response[0] | ||
| try: | ||
| self._table._table_impl.mutate_row(self.row_key, self._get_mutations()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The docstring says "If no mutations have been created in the row, no request is made.". But it looks like mutate_row raises a ValueError if no mutations are present.
You should probably catch and swallow that exception, and make sure this case is handled in tests
|
|
||
| return response[0] | ||
| try: | ||
| self._table._table_impl.mutate_row(self.row_key, self._get_mutations()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mutate_row has automatic retries. Is that expected? Did the previous implementation retry?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The previous implementation used Table.mutate_rows with the default retry.
4 participants
Changes Made: