add delete handler #12
Conversation
WalkthroughA new feature for bulk file deletion has been introduced in the zipserver. The changes include adding a Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant Server
participant StorageManager
participant CallbackService
Client->>Server: POST /delete with file keys
Server->>Server: Validate request
Server->>StorageManager: Acquire locks
StorageManager-->>Server: Locks acquired
Server->>Server: Spawn deletion goroutines
Server->>CallbackService: Optional: Send results to callback URL
Server->>Client: Return deletion results
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
zipserver/delete_handler.go (4)
15-15: Consider prioritizing the lock table implementation or removing the TODO.
This TODO suggests a global lock table is needed but there's already adeleteLockTablepresent. Either finalize the global lock approach or remove the comment to avoid confusion.
25-28: Improve error handling forParseFormfailures.
Currently, the user receives a generic error. Consider returning a more descriptive message to guide debugging, e.g., "Failed to parse form: [error]".-if err != nil { - return err +if err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("Failed to parse request form: %v", err) }
50-52: Allow read-only skip instead of error.
Environments with read-only storage likely won't perform deletions. Instead of returning an error, consider silently skipping or logging a warning to avoid blocking other deletions for non-read-only targets.
59-102: Optimize storage client creation.
Creating a new storage client per key can be expensive if there are many keys. Consider reusing the storage client outside the loop for better performance.- for _, key := range keys { - wg.Add(1) - go (func(key string) { - ... - storage, err := storageTargetConfig.NewStorageClient() - ... - })(key) - } + storage, err := storageTargetConfig.NewStorageClient() + if err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("Failed to create storage client: %v", err) + } + for _, key := range keys { + wg.Add(1) + go (func(key string, storage StorageClient) { + ... + })(key, storage) + }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
zipserver/config.go(1 hunks)zipserver/delete_handler.go(1 hunks)zipserver/server.go(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: build
🔇 Additional comments (2)
zipserver/config.go (1)
75-77: Verify delete handler integration with theReadonlyflag.Since this change is part of adding a delete handler feature:
- Ensure the delete handler properly respects this flag before attempting deletions
- Consider adding tests to verify the behavior when:
- Attempting to delete from a readonly target
- Switching a target from writable to readonly with pending operations
Let's verify the integration:
✅ Verification successful
The
Readonlyflag is properly integrated with the delete handler ✅The delete handler in
delete_handler.gocorrectly checks theReadonlyflag and prevents deletions on readonly storage targets with a clear error message:if storageTargetConfig.Readonly { return fmt.Errorf("Target storage is readonly: %s", targetName) }🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of the Readonly flag in the delete handler echo "Searching for delete handler's readonly check..." rg -p "Readonly.*delete" --type go # Look for related tests echo "Searching for related tests..." rg -p "Test.*Readonly.*Delete|Test.*Delete.*Readonly" --type goLength of output: 283
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find delete handler implementation echo "Searching for delete handler..." rg -p "func.*[Dd]elete" --type go -A 5 echo "Searching for Readonly flag usage..." rg -p "Readonly" --type go -A 5 # Look for write operation checks echo "Searching for write operation checks..." ast-grep --pattern 'if $_.Readonly { $$$ }'Length of output: 2408
zipserver/server.go (1)
105-105: Confirm the HTTP method constraint for the “/delete” endpoint.
Users may expect only DELETE requests to be valid for a “/delete” path. Consider enforcing a check onr.Method == "DELETE"or clarifying in documentation if POST is intended.+func deleteHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) error { + if r.Method != http.MethodDelete { + return fmt.Errorf("Method not allowed") + } + ... +}
|
|
||
| // TODO: use this field to prevent write operations to this storage config | ||
| Readonly bool `json:",omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Document the Readonly field and implement validation.
The new Readonly field needs attention in several areas:
-
Replace the TODO with proper documentation explaining:
- The purpose and behavior of this flag
- The implications of setting it to true/false
- Whether it affects existing files or only new operations
-
Consider adding validation in the
Validate()method to ensure consistent behavior.
Here's a suggested implementation:
- // TODO: use this field to prevent write operations to this storage config
- Readonly bool `json:",omitempty"`
+ // Readonly, when set to true, prevents all write operations (create/update/delete)
+ // to this storage target. This is useful for protecting critical storage targets
+ // from accidental modifications.
+ Readonly bool `json:",omitempty"`Add to the Validate() method:
// Add this check in the Validate() method
if s.Readonly {
// Optionally validate that this target isn't used in any write-required configurations
// For example, if this target is referenced as a destination for file copies
}| deletedFiles := waitForResult() | ||
|
|
||
| return writeJSONMessage(w, struct { | ||
| Success bool | ||
| DeletedFiles map[string]DeleteResult | ||
| }{true, deletedFiles}) | ||
| } else { | ||
| go (func() { | ||
| result := waitForResult() | ||
| resValues := url.Values{"Success": {"true"}} | ||
| for key, deleteResult := range result { | ||
| resValues.Add("DeletedFiles["+key+"][Success]", fmt.Sprintf("%v", deleteResult.Success)) | ||
| if !deleteResult.Success { | ||
| resValues.Add("DeletedFiles["+key+"][Error]", deleteResult.Error) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| notifyCallback(callbackURL, resValues) | ||
| })() | ||
|
|
||
| return writeJSONMessage(w, struct { | ||
| Processing bool | ||
| Async bool | ||
| }{true, true}) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure notification reliability in async callback scenario.
The current implementation does not handle callback failures or timeouts. If the request to the callback URL fails, we lose the deletion status. Consider adding retry logic or logging callback failures.
| keys, ok := r.Form["keys[]"] | ||
| if !ok { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("Missing keys[] parameter") | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Empty keys array validation is needed
The current code would return success without performing any deletions if an empty keys array is provided. The suggested fix correctly validates both missing and empty array cases.
🔗 Analysis chain
Validate empty keys input more thoroughly.
If keys[] is present in the request but the array is empty, this will pass the current check. Consider validating it has at least one value.
-keys, ok := r.Form["keys[]"]
-if !ok {
- return fmt.Errorf("Missing keys[] parameter")
+keys := r.Form["keys[]"]
+if len(keys) == 0 {
+ return fmt.Errorf("Missing or empty keys[] parameter")
}🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Error: No shell scripts found
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for "keys[]" usage in the codebase
echo "=== Searching for keys[] parameter usage ==="
rg "keys\[\]" -A 3 -B 3
# Get full context of delete_handler.go
echo -e "\n=== Full context of delete_handler.go ==="
cat zipserver/delete_handler.go
# Find similar form parameter validation patterns
echo -e "\n=== Finding similar form parameter validation patterns ==="
ast-grep --pattern 'r.Form[$_]'
Length of output: 4118
Docstrings generation was requested by @leafo. * #12 (comment) The following files were modified: * `zipserver/delete_handler.go` * `zipserver/server.go`
|
Note Generated docstrings for this pull request, at #13 |
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Improvements