chore: Implement custom LRU cache with protected keys #3097
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
victor-yanev
requested review from
AlfredoG87,
ebadiere,
lukelee-sl and
a team
as code owners
🚨 Memory Leak Detected 🚨A potential memory leak has been detected in the test titled Details📊 Memory Leak Detection Report 📊 GC Type: MarkSweepCompact Heap Statistics (before vs after executing the test):
Heap Space Statistics (before vs after executing the test):
RecommendationsPlease investigate the memory allocations in this test, focusing on objects that are not being properly deallocated. |
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
| * @private | ||
| */ | ||
| private isPreconfiguredPlanKey(key: string, plan: SpendingPlanConfig): boolean { | ||
| return key.includes(`${HbarSpendingPlanRepository.collectionKey}:${plan.id}`); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: This should work since we're working with fixed length keys. In general I would try to get an exact match, in the case that a key contains the substring of another key.
const expectedKey = `${HbarSpendingPlanRepository.collectionKey}:${plan.id}`;
return key === expectedKey;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is intentionally done here, because we want to also match the amountSpent and spendingHistory keys which contain the ${HbarSpendingPlanRepository.collectionKey}:${plan.id} prefix:
${HbarSpendingPlanRepository.collectionKey}:${plan.id}:amountSpent${HbarSpendingPlanRepository.collectionKey}:${plan.id}:spendingHistory
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed to a more general approach where we initialize a set of protected keys in the constructor and then in delete we check for the existence of the key in this set of protected keys:
delete(key: K): boolean {
if (this.protectedKeys.has(key)) {
this.logger.trace(`Deletion of key ${key} is ignored as it is protected.`);
return false;
}
return super.delete(key);
}
Signed-off-by: Victor Yanev <[email protected]>
|
|
Looks like this approach is still not working for scenarios where the beforeEach(() => {
cache = new CustomLRUCache<string, any>(logger, { ttl: 100, max: 3 });
});
...
// ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ THIS TEST IS FAILING ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️
it('should not delete a protected key when the cache is full', () => {
const protectedKey = `hbarSpendingPlan:${spendingPlansConfig[0].id}`;
const keys = ['key1', 'key2', protectedKey];
keys.forEach((key) => cache.set(key, 'value'));
cache.get('key1');
cache.get('key2');
cache.set('key3', 'value');
expect(cache.has(protectedKey)).to.be.true;
});And therefore, unfortunately, this PR is pointless... |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3097 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.16% 85.11% +1.94%
==========================================
Files 63 45 -18
Lines 4236 3372 -864
Branches 830 669 -161
==========================================
- Hits 3523 2870 -653
+ Misses 470 294 -176
+ Partials 243 208 -35
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
Replaced by #3140 |
victor-yanev
deleted the
3096-Implement-custom-LRU-cache-with-protected-keys
branch
Description:
This PR implements a custom
LRUCacheimplementation with the ability to protect certain keys from being deleted. The cache is designed to handle specific key prefixes that are associated with pre-configured spending plans, ensuring that these keys are not removed from the cache.Changes
hbarSpendingPlan:{{id}},ethAddressHbarSpendingPlan:{{ethAddress}},ipAddressHbarSpendingPlan:{{ipAddress}}).Unit Tests:
customLRUCache.spec.tsto verify the behavior of theCustomLRUCache.Related issue(s):
Fixes #3096
Notes for reviewer:
Checklist