[chaos] Issue 1946 repro

[dentiny]

Summary

Briefly explain what this PR does.

Related Issues

Closes # or links to related issues.

Changes

Checklist

• Code builds correctly
• Tests have been added or updated
• Documentation updated if necessary
• I have reviewed my own changes

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @dentiny, 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 new regression test case to address and validate a specific issue, likely a bug, identified as Mooncake-Labs#1946. The test ensures that the reported problem is reproducible and that any future fixes remain effective, contributing to the stability of the table_handler component.

Highlights

• New Regression Test: Adds test_issue_1946 to src/moonlink/src/table_handler/regression/issue_regression.rs to reproduce and verify a fix for issue Mooncake-Labs#1946, using chaos_replay::replay with issue_1946_replay_events.json.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation 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 found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist 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. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds a new regression test for issue Mooncake-Labs#1946. The new test follows the pattern of existing tests in the file, which involves replaying events from a JSON file. While the change is straightforward, I've identified an opportunity to improve maintainability by reducing code duplication across the test functions. I've also suggested a minor improvement for error handling to make potential test failures more descriptive.

[gemini-code-assist]

This test function is almost identical to test_issue_1793 and test_issue_1834. This code duplication can make maintenance harder in the long run. To improve maintainability and adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle, consider refactoring this duplicated logic.

A macro could be a good way to abstract the common test structure:

macro_rules! replay_test {
    ($name:ident, $issue:literal) => {
        #[tokio::test]
        async fn $name() {
            let path_str = format!("src/table_handler/regression/issue_{}_replay_events.json", $issue);
            let replay_event_filepath = std::path::Path::new(env!("CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR"))
                .join(path_str);
            chaos_replay::replay(replay_event_filepath.to_str().expect("Path should be valid UTF-8")).await;
        }
    };
}

replay_test!(test_issue_1793, "1793");
replay_test!(test_issue_1834, "1834");
replay_test!(test_issue_1946, "1946");

This would make adding new regression tests in the future simpler and less error-prone.

[gemini-code-assist]

Using unwrap() can cause a panic with a generic message if the path is not valid UTF-8. While unlikely to fail here, it's better practice to use expect() with a descriptive message. This improves debugging by providing more context if the operation ever fails.

Suggested change

	chaos_replay::replay(replay_event_filepath.as_path().to_str().unwrap()).await;
	chaos_replay::replay(replay_event_filepath.as_path().to_str().expect("Path to replay event file must be valid UTF-8")).await;