message-validation: graceful validation locks management #1840
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
iurii-ssv
commented
Nov 8, 2024
go.mod
Outdated
| go 1.22 | ||
| go 1.23.1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is pretty much a requirement to use tailscale.com v1.76.3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added a commit on top to drop it down to tailscale.com v1.72.0 so we can keep using go 1.22 like this (as I've done in #1798 (comment)):
go 1.22.0
toolchain go1.23.1
See #1840 (comment) for more details.
nkryuchkov
reviewed
Nov 8, 2024
2 tasks
nkryuchkov
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2024
iurii-ssv
force-pushed
the
message-validation-graceful-validation-locks-management
branch
from
de9e2f2 to
cfc63e4
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've been browsing message validation code and noticed there is this ever-growing
map(as is mentioned in TODO-comments also) - decided to fix it while I have the relevant context (as well as document our assumptions on this).The general approach on keeping
mapsize under control mirrors the one implemented here - perhaps we want to create a helper type that combinesttlcache.Cacheandsingleflight.Groupin this manner - since we are doing it at least twice already (and will likely need to use this pattern in future), WDYT ?