[tor-bugs] #16596 [Metrics/ExoneraTor]: Change database queries towards making only a single query per request
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki
blackhole at torproject.org
Mon Sep 4 20:13:39 UTC 2017
#16596: Change database queries towards making only a single query per request
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: karsten | Owner: karsten
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_revision
Priority: Medium | Milestone:
Component: Metrics/ExoneraTor | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Actual Points:
Parent ID: | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment (by karsten):
Replying to [comment:6 iwakeh]:
Thanks for starting this review!
> Already found a bit. There are also a few things that are part of other
tickets (#19623, #19624, #21145), which I tried to omit here.
Okay.
> ExoneraTorServlet: `exoneratorHost` should not be configured via
web.xml, rather use simple java properties file or even simpler hard code.
After all it shouldn't change that often, should it?
Hmm, right. My idea was that we'll later copy over this servlet to
metrics-web where it would make a little more sense to make the host name
configurable. But on second thought that's not really the case. I'll just
hard-code it.
> In 'step 3' I see some problems with `null` values, for example,
`"".equals(null)` would evaluate to false (line 147 following).
Note that we're using `null` for invalid parameter values and `""` for
empty parameter values. Do you see actual problems or potential problems
there?
In the latter case (potential problems), maybe we can resolve them by
documenting things a bit better, or by making things clearer in subsequent
commits.
In the former case (actual problems), let's of course fix the issues now.
But I'd have to see the actual problem first.
> For most exceptions caught the error message should be logged; and, it
might be time to switch to slf4j-api and logback, now.
Yes, we can switch to slf4j, though we should do that in a separate commit
on top of these, probably in a new ticket.
> In addition, reading the response query should also catch
RuntimeExceptions (possibly from Gson).
Ugh, indeed. Will fix. Good '''catch'''. :)
> The version received should also be logged, if it differs from the known
version.
Yep, good idea.
> The known version(s) could be a constant in `ExoneraTorServlet`; either
just the major part or all. This makes it more obvious.
Also a good idea.
> QueryServlet: Helper methods ` private String parseTimestampParameter`
and `private String parseIpParameter` should be `public static` and tests
should be added. Similarly, `private String convertIpV*ToHex`, which
could be combined by simply adding another argument, i.e., `public static
String convertIpV4ToHex(String relayIp, boolean isIpV4)`.
Agreed, though let's save that for another ticket and not overload this
ticket with too many improvements all at once. I know it's tempting. Stay
strong, we'll eventually fix these things.
> A `MILLISEC_IN_DAY = 24L * 60L * 60L * 1000L` constant would be useful.
Agreed. That's probably simple enough for a separate commit on top of this
branch.
> Other: Using the object `Boolean exit` for a triplet state is a bit too
much of a hack. There could be a simple enum, as simple as, for example,
`public enum Exit { U, Y, N; }`.
Ugh, that would turn the JSON field into a string, which doesn't seem very
intuitive for "is an exit". And whoever processes this JSON will need to
check for `null` anyway, regardless of boolean or string. In fact, I think
that we're using the boolean field exactly in the way it's supposed to be
used: `true` means "is an exit", `false` means "is not an exit", and
`null` means "we don't know". I think I'd like to leave this one
unchanged. It's not a hack.
> Regarding SQL:
> Order-by statement should be using names not numbers.
Hmm, now that you mention that, I wonder if we even need results to be
sorted at all. I'll try to take that out. Otherwise I'd change numbers to
names in a subsequent commit, because it's not directly related to this
ticket.
> Couldn't the exit-information be part of the query already?
Yes, but I'd like to save database changes for a later ticket. There's so,
so much more we can do to make the database schema more efficient. (I'd
have to look at my notes from last year, but I believe that we're storing
exit information directly in the database rather than the entire raw
status entry.)
> (I could also look into providing some patches, if we agree on the
changes and you don't have the time?)
I'll try to make changes tomorrow morning. Thanks again for the initial
review!
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16596#comment:8>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
More information about the tor-bugs
mailing list