f92e0a4018 added minio to the tests/pgsql.ini.tmpl and Forgejo CI does
not run a minio server. It will if there are external storage related
changes at some point but it is not the case now so it is not worth
the burden.
(cherry picked from commit 4cfbf4718d)
(cherry picked from commit 9bd644d601)
(cherry picked from commit 604636c7c4)
(cherry picked from commit 341cdb8540)
(cherry picked from commit 57bdc91de5)
(cherry picked from commit c6ec6517b4)
(cherry picked from commit 2f03fc1b29)
(cherry picked from commit aaecd10966)
(cherry picked from commit 7025ff7b06)
(cherry picked from commit 15e6485ae1)
(cherry picked from commit 5f7b23c659)
(cherry picked from commit a74d7ce6c5)
(cherry picked from commit f552e2fc56)
(cherry picked from commit 9fa4a90baa)
(cherry picked from commit a8be33da60)
(cherry picked from commit 205f7897aa)
(cherry picked from commit a6074d765d)
(cherry picked from commit b85c999109)
(cherry picked from commit e370e412e8)
The setting `MAILER_TYPE` is deprecated.
According to the config cheat sheet, it should be `PROTOCOL`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
# ⚠️ Breaking
Many deprecated queue config options are removed (actually, they should
have been removed in 1.18/1.19).
If you see the fatal message when starting Gitea: "Please update your
app.ini to remove deprecated config options", please follow the error
messages to remove these options from your app.ini.
Example:
```
2023/05/06 19:39:22 [E] Removed queue option: `[indexer].ISSUE_INDEXER_QUEUE_TYPE`. Use new options in `[queue.issue_indexer]`
2023/05/06 19:39:22 [E] Removed queue option: `[indexer].UPDATE_BUFFER_LEN`. Use new options in `[queue.issue_indexer]`
2023/05/06 19:39:22 [F] Please update your app.ini to remove deprecated config options
```
Many options in `[queue]` are are dropped, including:
`WRAP_IF_NECESSARY`, `MAX_ATTEMPTS`, `TIMEOUT`, `WORKERS`,
`BLOCK_TIMEOUT`, `BOOST_TIMEOUT`, `BOOST_WORKERS`, they can be removed
from app.ini.
# The problem
The old queue package has some legacy problems:
* complexity: I doubt few people could tell how it works.
* maintainability: Too many channels and mutex/cond are mixed together,
too many different structs/interfaces depends each other.
* stability: due to the complexity & maintainability, sometimes there
are strange bugs and difficult to debug, and some code doesn't have test
(indeed some code is difficult to test because a lot of things are mixed
together).
* general applicability: although it is called "queue", its behavior is
not a well-known queue.
* scalability: it doesn't seem easy to make it work with a cluster
without breaking its behaviors.
It came from some very old code to "avoid breaking", however, its
technical debt is too heavy now. It's a good time to introduce a better
"queue" package.
# The new queue package
It keeps using old config and concept as much as possible.
* It only contains two major kinds of concepts:
* The "base queue": channel, levelqueue, redis
* They have the same abstraction, the same interface, and they are
tested by the same testing code.
* The "WokerPoolQueue", it uses the "base queue" to provide "worker
pool" function, calls the "handler" to process the data in the base
queue.
* The new code doesn't do "PushBack"
* Think about a queue with many workers, the "PushBack" can't guarantee
the order for re-queued unhandled items, so in new code it just does
"normal push"
* The new code doesn't do "pause/resume"
* The "pause/resume" was designed to handle some handler's failure: eg:
document indexer (elasticsearch) is down
* If a queue is paused for long time, either the producers blocks or the
new items are dropped.
* The new code doesn't do such "pause/resume" trick, it's not a common
queue's behavior and it doesn't help much.
* If there are unhandled items, the "push" function just blocks for a
few seconds and then re-queue them and retry.
* The new code doesn't do "worker booster"
* Gitea's queue's handlers are light functions, the cost is only the
go-routine, so it doesn't make sense to "boost" them.
* The new code only use "max worker number" to limit the concurrent
workers.
* The new "Push" never blocks forever
* Instead of creating more and more blocking goroutines, return an error
is more friendly to the server and to the end user.
There are more details in code comments: eg: the "Flush" problem, the
strange "code.index" hanging problem, the "immediate" queue problem.
Almost ready for review.
TODO:
* [x] add some necessary comments during review
* [x] add some more tests if necessary
* [x] update documents and config options
* [x] test max worker / active worker
* [x] re-run the CI tasks to see whether any test is flaky
* [x] improve the `handleOldLengthConfiguration` to provide more
friendly messages
* [x] fine tune default config values (eg: length?)
## Code coverage:
- This PR attempts to split our various DB tests into separate
pipelines.
- It splits up some of the extra feature-related tests rather than
having most of them in the MySQL test.
- It disables the race detector for some of the pipelines as well, as it
can cause slower runs and is mostly redundant when the pipelines just
swap DBs.
- It builds without SQLite support for any of the non-SQLite pipelines.
- It moves the e2e test to using SQLite rather than PG (partially
because I moved the minio tests to PG and that mucked up the test
config, and partially because it avoids another running service)
- It splits up the `go mod download` task in the Makefile from the tool
installation, as the tools are only needed in the compliance pipeline.
(Arguably even some of the tools aren't needed there, but that could be
a follow-up PR)
- SQLite is now the only arm64 pipeline, moving PG back to amd64 which
can leverage autoscaler
Should resolve #22010 - one thing that wasn't changed here but is
mentioned in that issue, unit tests are needed in the same pipeline as
an integration test in order to form a complete coverage report (at
least as far as I could tell), so for now it remains in a pipeline with
a DB integration test.
Please let me know if I've inadvertently changed something that was how
it was on purpose.
---
I will say sometimes it's hard to pin down the average time, as a
pipeline could be waiting for a runner for X minutes and that brings the
total up by X minutes as well, but overall this does seem to be faster
on average.
---------
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
