- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork6.6k
[core] Comment on caller requirements for GetObjectStatus#54735
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: dayshah <dhyey2019@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Summary of Changes
Hello@dayshah, 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 introduces a documentation-only change to thecore_worker.proto
file. The primary goal is to explicitly inform future callers of theGetObjectStatus
RPC about a critical requirement: the caller's responsibility to guarantee that the object reference remains valid and in scope during the RPC's execution. This prevents potential issues related to object lifetime management.
Highlights
- Documentation Update: Added a crucial comment to the
GetObjectStatus
RPC definition incore_worker.proto
. This comment clarifies that callers of this RPC must ensure the object reference remains in scope throughout the execution, addressing a potential limitation for future uses.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on ourdocumentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either/gemini <command>
or@gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review | Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary | Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help | Displays a list of available commands. |
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.gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be foundhere.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and 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 to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with theGemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
Review thePrivacy Notices,Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy,Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHubhere. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it anduse code with caution.↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request adds a crucial comment to theGetObjectStatus
RPC, clarifying the caller's responsibility to maintain the object reference. I've suggested a small wording improvement to make the comment even clearer and more direct for future developers. Overall, a good and necessary change.
// This RPC assumes the ref won't be removed in the middle of execution and it's the | ||
// caller's responsibility to guarantee that. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Thanks for adding this important clarification. The current wording is a bit vague. To improve clarity for future developers, I suggest rephrasing it to be more direct about the requirement and the reason behind it.
Specifically:
- "the ref" is ambiguous. It's better to specify "the object reference".
- "won't be removed in the middle of execution" can be more clearly stated as holding a reference for the duration of the RPC.
- Explainingwhy this is necessary (to prevent garbage collection) makes the requirement easier to understand and remember.
Here is a suggested improvement:
// The caller must hold a reference to the object for the duration of this RPC. // This prevents the object from being garbage collected by the owner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Not really necessary IMO (so many things would break if the same assumption didn't hold), but up to you.
d6542cd
intoray-project:masterUh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Why are these changes needed?
See discussion here#54690 (comment)
The comment exists to make sure the caller is aware of this. Currently this is only called on borrowing so it will stay in scope. Future callers should be aware of this limitation.