refactor(store/db): remove unnecessary code and correct error handling

[0x2d3c]

remove unnecessary code and correct error handling

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Improved error handling across the application for enhanced stability and clarity in error messages.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The modification involves enhancing the error handling mechanism within the codebase. Key steps include the introduction of the errors package, later renamed to storeerrors for clarity. This change is followed by an update across various methods, where references to the original errors package are now pointed to storeerrors. This adjustment signifies an effort to streamline and possibly standardize error management within the project.

Changes

Files	Summary of Changes
store/.../goleveldb.go	- Imported errors package, renamed to storeerrors - Updated error references to storeerrors - Refactored error handling

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

---

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit-tests for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between b239590 and 0754977.

Files selected for processing (1)

• store/db/goleveldb.go (13 hunks)

Additional comments: 6

store/db/goleveldb.go (6)

• 5-5: The import of the errors package is noted. Given the context, this import is necessary for the error handling refactor. However, it's important to ensure that this package is used appropriately throughout the file, especially since it's being renamed to avoid naming conflicts.
• 19-19: Renaming the errors package to storeerrors is a good practice to avoid naming conflicts and clarify its usage within the store/database context. This change should be consistently applied across all references in this file.
• 56-56: The use of storeerrors for error handling is consistent with the refactor's objective. It's crucial that these error references are correctly updated from errors to storeerrors to maintain the clarity and accuracy of error handling throughout the file. This change enhances the maintainability and readability of the code by using more descriptive error types.

Also applies to: 76-76, 79-79, 87-87, 90-90, 98-98, 106-106, 176-176, 185-185, 343-343, 346-346, 349-349, 358-358, 361-361, 400-400

• 60-60: Using errors.Is for error comparison is a best practice in Go, as it correctly handles error wrapping. This usage is appropriate for checking specific error types, such as dberrors.ErrNotFound. However, ensure that the errors package is still imported if it's being used directly like this, despite the renaming of another import to storeerrors.
• 70-70: These lines of code, which include operations like Get, Set, Delete, and stats retrieval, are crucial for the functionality of the GoLevelDB struct. It's important to ensure that error handling is correctly implemented in these methods, especially following the refactor. The use of storeerrors for custom error types and the correct handling of underlying database errors are good practices that contribute to the robustness and clarity of the code.

Also applies to: 81-81, 92-92, 100-100, 108-108, 117-117, 152-152, 206-206

• 381-381: The decision to reset and nullify the batch after writing in the write method is a good practice for resource management, ensuring that the batch cannot be reused after being written. This helps prevent potential errors or unexpected behavior. However, it's essential to document this behavior clearly for developers who might use this method, to avoid confusion.

Consider adding a comment explaining that the batch will be invalidated after calling write, to improve code clarity and developer understanding.