Allow limit queries without random ordering

[sureshanaparti]

Description

This PR allows the limit queries without random ordering.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[DaanHoogland]

@sureshanaparti , what are we using this for? It is a framework level change without usage, I am really wondering.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 30.00000% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 4.15%. Comparing base (3d7d412) to head (65761f7).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...c/main/java/com/cloud/utils/db/GenericDaoBase.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...rk/db/src/main/java/com/cloud/utils/db/Filter.java	60.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
.../src/main/java/com/cloud/host/dao/HostDaoImpl.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...dstack/storage/datastore/db/ImageStoreDaoImpl.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.20   #12598       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     16.26%    4.15%   -12.11%     
=============================================
  Files          5661      404     -5257     
  Lines        500010    32965   -467045     
  Branches      60715     5893    -54822     
=============================================
- Hits          81331     1370    -79961     
+ Misses       409606    31419   -378187     
+ Partials       9073      176     -8897     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.15% <ø> (ø)
unittests	17.12% <30.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sureshanaparti]

@sureshanaparti , what are we using this for? It is a framework level change without usage, I am really wondering.

random sorting may not be required in all cases. It requires the use of a temporary table for the sort, which is taking more time for a simple lookup by name of a VM.

[winterhazel]

@sureshanaparti , what are we using this for? It is a framework level change without usage, I am really wondering.

@DaanHoogland there are some usages for it. I used an alternative approach in 02d8f18 for batch expunge. That one line in GenericDaoBase may be changed to filter = new Filter(batchSizeFinal, false);

[winterhazel]

@sureshanaparti btw, I think that it may be good to change the usages of Filter(long limit) to Filter(long limit, true) for the sake of clarity, and either remove Filter(long limit) or change it to this(limit, false) to avoid unintended behavior in the future

[DaanHoogland]

ok, guys, I see how it could have been useful for instance in @winterhazel ’s change. In this PR however it is not used at all. Are we planning to …?

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16714

[sureshanaparti]

@sureshanaparti btw, I think that it may be good to change the usages of Filter(long limit) to Filter(long limit, true) for the sake of clarity, and either remove Filter(long limit) or change it to this(limit, false) to avoid unintended behavior in the future

@winterhazel there are references with Filter(1) and random sorting doesn't make sense there, updated Filter(long limit) to call this(limit, false).

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16746

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16747

[winterhazel]

@sureshanaparti btw, I think that it may be good to change the usages of Filter(long limit) to Filter(long limit, true) for the sake of clarity, and either remove Filter(long limit) or change it to this(limit, false) to avoid unintended behavior in the future

@winterhazel there are references with Filter(1) and random sorting doesn't make sense there, updated Filter(long limit) to call this(limit, false).

@sureshanaparti the random sorting does make sense in com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase#lockOneRandomRow, com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase#findOneIncludingRemovedBy, com.cloud.host.dao.HostDaoImpl#findAnyStateHypervisorHostInCluster, and org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.db.ImageStoreDaoImpl#findOneByZoneAndProtocol. Could you update those to call Filter(1, true) to restore the previous behavior?

[sureshanaparti]

@sureshanaparti btw, I think that it may be good to change the usages of Filter(long limit) to Filter(long limit, true) for the sake of clarity, and either remove Filter(long limit) or change it to this(limit, false) to avoid unintended behavior in the future

@winterhazel there are references with Filter(1) and random sorting doesn't make sense there, updated Filter(long limit) to call this(limit, false).

@sureshanaparti the random sorting does make sense in com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase#lockOneRandomRow, com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase#findOneIncludingRemovedBy, com.cloud.host.dao.HostDaoImpl#findAnyStateHypervisorHostInCluster, and org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.db.ImageStoreDaoImpl#findOneByZoneAndProtocol. Could you update those to call Filter(1, true) to restore the previous behavior?

oh sorry, correct. I'll check and update. thanks @winterhazel

[borisstoyanov]

LGTM

[sureshanaparti]

@sureshanaparti btw, I think that it may be good to change the usages of Filter(long limit) to Filter(long limit, true) for the sake of clarity, and either remove Filter(long limit) or change it to this(limit, false) to avoid unintended behavior in the future

@winterhazel there are references with Filter(1) and random sorting doesn't make sense there, updated Filter(long limit) to call this(limit, false).

@sureshanaparti the random sorting does make sense in com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase#lockOneRandomRow, com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase#findOneIncludingRemovedBy, com.cloud.host.dao.HostDaoImpl#findAnyStateHypervisorHostInCluster, and org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.db.ImageStoreDaoImpl#findOneByZoneAndProtocol. Could you update those to call Filter(1, true) to restore the previous behavior?

oh sorry, correct. I'll check and update. thanks @winterhazel

updated @winterhazel

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16777

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm