The scan key module API provides the scan callback with the current
field name and value (if it exists). Those arguments are RedisModuleString*
which means it supposes to point to robj which is encoded as a string.
Using createStringObjectFromLongLong function might return robj that
points to an integer and so break a module that tries for example to
use RedisModule_StringPtrLen on the given field/value.
The PR introduces a fix that uses the createObject function and sdsfromlonglong function.
Using those function promise that the field and value pass to the to the
scan callback will be Strings.
The PR also changes the Scan test module to use RedisModule_StringPtrLen
to catch the issue. without this, the issue is hidden because
RedisModule_ReplyWithString knows to handle integer encoding of the
given robj (RedisModuleString).
The PR also introduces a new test to verify the issue is solved.
The `LRANK` command returns the index (position) of a given element
within a list. Using the `direction` argument it is possible to specify
going from head to tail (acending, 1) or from tail to head (decending,
-1). Only the first found index is returend. The complexity is O(N).
When using lists as a queue it can be of interest at what position a
given element is, for instance to monitor a job processing through a
work queue. This came up within the Python `rq` project which is based
on Redis[0].
[0]: https://github.com/rq/rq/issues/1197
Signed-off-by: Paul Spooren <mail@aparcar.org>
The `LRANK` command returns the index (position) of a given element
within a list. Using the `direction` argument it is possible to specify
going from head to tail (acending, 1) or from tail to head (decending,
-1). Only the first found index is returend. The complexity is O(N).
When using lists as a queue it can be of interest at what position a
given element is, for instance to monitor a job processing through a
work queue. This came up within the Python `rq` project which is based
on Redis[0].
[0]: https://github.com/rq/rq/issues/1197
Signed-off-by: Paul Spooren <mail@aparcar.org>
Much like MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD, the WATCH and UNWATCH are not actually
operating on the database or server state, but instead operate on the
client state. the client may send them all in one long pipeline and check
all the responses only at the end, so failing them may lead to a
mismatch between the client state on the server and the one on the
client end, and execute the wrong commands (ones that were meant to be
discarded)
the watched keys are not actually stored in the client struct, but they
are in fact part of the client state. for instance, they're not cleared
or moved in SWAPDB or FLUSHDB.
the recent change in that loop (iteration rather than waiting for it to
be empty) was intended to avoid an endless loop in case some slave would
refuse to be freed.
but the lookup of the first client remained, which would have caused it
to try the first one again and again instead of moving on.
the recent change in that loop (iteration rather than waiting for it to
be empty) was intended to avoid an endless loop in case some slave would
refuse to be freed.
but the lookup of the first client remained, which would have caused it
to try the first one again and again instead of moving on.
Much like MULTI/EXEC/DISCARD, the WATCH and UNWATCH are not actually
operating on the database or server state, but instead operate on the
client state. the client may send them all in one long pipeline and check
all the responses only at the end, so failing them may lead to a
mismatch between the client state on the server and the one on the
client end, and execute the wrong commands (ones that were meant to be
discarded)
the watched keys are not actually stored in the client struct, but they
are in fact part of the client state. for instance, they're not cleared
or moved in SWAPDB or FLUSHDB.
