-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.2k
Remove first FlowControlHandler
from HTTP pipeline
#128099
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
elasticsearchmachine
merged 8 commits into
elastic:main
from
DaveCTurner:2025/05/16/netty-pipeline-less-flow-control
May 22, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
73a035c
Remove first `FlowControlHandler` from HTTP pipeline
DaveCTurner 95ebb7b
Update docs/changelog/128099.yaml
DaveCTurner e42a85a
Missing decoder failure handling
DaveCTurner 483bee7
Merge branch 'main' into 2025/05/16/netty-pipeline-less-flow-control
DaveCTurner 2afaf1b
Improve test coverage
DaveCTurner 0d5059a
Remove spurious AwaitsFix
DaveCTurner 7157fce
testInlineValidationDoesNotFork
DaveCTurner 494a72a
Merge branch 'main' into 2025/05/16/netty-pipeline-less-flow-control
DaveCTurner File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
pr: 128099 | ||
summary: Remove first `FlowControlHandler` from HTTP pipeline | ||
area: Network | ||
type: enhancement | ||
issues: [] |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we don't care about individual chunks and in spirit of PR to process more efficiently we can compose all buffered chunks into one if there is more than one chunk.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I did play around with that idea at first but I couldn't find a totally obvious way to combine the chunks back together (it's more than just the bytes in the request body, there's also decoder errors, and the last chunk is special, and maybe some other things too). Moreover this doesn't do anything to the hot path where we complete validation inline and then stream chunks straight through anyway, so it didn't seem worth pursuing. Maybe in a follow-up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Make sense. Added complexity seems unnecessary. Thanks.