#2903 fix: improve gRPC command result serialization

[robfrank]

This pull request primarily focuses on code cleanup, improved logging practices, and minor test and naming corrections. The most significant changes include consistent formatting for logging statements, removal of redundant code, and small test improvements.

Logging Improvements and Code Cleanup:

• Reformatted all LogManager.instance().log calls in RemoteGrpcDatabase.java to use multi-line formatting for better readability and consistency. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
• Refactored imports in RemoteGrpcDatabase.java to remove unused imports and group them logically. [1] [2] [3]
• Removed redundant returnRows variable and associated conditional logic in the commandInternal method, always returning rows for command execution. [1] [2] [3]

Test and Naming Corrections:

• Fixed a typo in a test method name from multipleInsertBAtched to multipleInsertBatched in RemoteDatabaseJavaApiTest.java.
• Removed a debug print statement from createSchemaWithDynamicSqlScript and added a debug print in orderByAfterDeleteInsert for better test output. [1] [2]
• Refactored test setup in GrpcServerPluginIT.java, replacing the @AfterEach method with a createSchema helper for schema setup.

These changes help maintain code quality, improve log traceability, and ensure tests are up-to-date and clear.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @robfrank, 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 primarily focuses on enhancing the robustness and consistency of gRPC command result serialization. It streamlines how command outputs are processed and returned, ensuring a uniform structure for all results. Alongside this core improvement, the PR also includes significant code quality enhancements through consistent logging practices, removal of unnecessary code, and refactoring of test infrastructure, all contributing to a more maintainable and reliable system.

Highlights

• Improved gRPC Command Result Serialization: The handling of command results in gRPC has been standardized, ensuring that all command executions consistently return structured GrpcRecord objects, simplifying client-side processing and improving data consistency.
• Enhanced Logging Consistency: Logging statements across RemoteGrpcDatabase.java have been reformatted to use multi-line calls, significantly improving readability and maintaining a consistent logging style throughout the codebase.
• Code Cleanup and Refactoring: Redundant code, such as the returnRows variable and its associated conditional logic, has been removed, and imports have been optimized. Test setup logic has also been refactored into a dedicated helper method for better organization.
• Expanded Test Coverage: New integration tests have been added to validate the improved gRPC command result serialization for UPDATE, INSERT, and CREATE VERTEX operations, ensuring the changes behave as expected.

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 by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

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 pull request 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 introduces several improvements, primarily focused on code cleanup, enhancing logging practices, and refining gRPC command result serialization. The changes to reformat logging statements and refactor test setups are well-executed and improve code readability and maintainability. The simplification in RemoteGrpcDatabase.java by removing the redundant returnRows logic is a good cleanup.

However, I've identified a couple of issues that need attention:

1. A critical regression in ArcadeDbGrpcService.java where the calculation for affected records and the enforcement of maxRows have been unintentionally removed during refactoring.
2. A minor issue where a debug System.out.println statement has been left in a test file.

I've provided detailed comments and suggestions for these points. Once these are addressed, the PR will be in great shape.

[mergify]

🧪 CI Insights

Here's what we observed from your CI run for 52e8075.

🟢 All jobs passed!

But CI Insights is watching 👀

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
Report missing for 2c941e61	✅ 20.37%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (2c941e6)	Report Missing	Report Missing	Report Missing
Head commit (52e8075)	75630	47183	62.39%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#2904)	54	11	20.37%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Footnotes

1. Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct. ↩