This fixes#8518 by adding a conditional check on `SyncResult` in a function when `prev_stream_token == current_stream_token`, as a sanity check. In `CachedResponse.set.<remove>()`, the result is immediately popped from the cache if the conditional function returns "false".
This prevents the caching of a timed-out `SyncResult` (that has `next_key` as the stream key that produced that `SyncResult`). The cache is prevented from returning a `SyncResult` that makes the client request the same stream key over and over again, effectively making it stuck in a loop of requesting and getting a response immediately for as long as the cache keeps those values.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan de Jong <jonathan@automatia.nl>
- Update black version to the latest
- Run black auto formatting over the codebase
- Run autoformatting according to [`docs/code_style.md
`](80d6dc9783/docs/code_style.md)
- Update `code_style.md` docs around installing black to use the correct version
* Add `DeferredCache.get_immediate` method
A bunch of things that are currently calling `DeferredCache.get` are only
really interested in the result if it's completed. We can optimise and simplify
this case.
* Remove unused 'default' parameter to DeferredCache.get()
* another get_immediate instance
slots use less memory (and attribute access is faster) while slightly
limiting the flexibility of the class attributes. This focuses on objects
which are instantiated "often" and for short periods of time.
First some background: StreamChangeCache is used to keep track of what "entities" have
changed since a given stream ID. So for example, we might use it to keep track of when the last
to-device message for a given user was received [1], and hence whether we need to pull any to-device messages from the database on a sync [2].
Now, it turns out that StreamChangeCache didn't support more than one thing being changed at
a given stream_id (this was part of the problem with #7206). However, it's entirely valid to send
to-device messages to more than one user at a time.
As it turns out, this did in fact work, because *some* methods of StreamChangeCache coped
ok with having multiple things changing on the same stream ID, and it seems we never actually
use the methods which don't work on the stream change caches where we allow multiple
changes at the same stream ID. But that feels horribly fragile, hence: let's update
StreamChangeCache to properly support this, and add some typing and some more tests while
we're at it.
[1]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/blob/release-v1.12.3/synapse/storage/data_stores/main/deviceinbox.py#L301
[2]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/blob/release-v1.12.3/synapse/storage/data_stores/main/deviceinbox.py#L47-L51
Other parts of the code (such as the StreamChangeCache) assume that there will
not be multiple changes with the same stream id.
This code was introduced in #7024, and I hope this fixes#7206.
A lot of the things we log at INFO are now a bit superfluous, so lets
make them DEBUG logs to reduce the amount we log by default.
Co-Authored-By: Brendan Abolivier <babolivier@matrix.org>
Co-authored-by: Brendan Abolivier <github@brendanabolivier.com>
This gives a bit of a grace period where we can attempt to refetch a
remote `well-known`, while still using the cached result if that fails.
Hopefully this will make the well-known resolution a bit more torelant
of failures, rather than it immediately treating failures as "no result"
and caching that for an hour.
There was some inconsistent behaviour in the caching layer around how
exceptions were handled - particularly synchronously-thrown ones.
This seems to be most easily handled by pushing the creation of
ObservableDeferreds down from CacheDescriptor to the Cache.
Closes#4583
Does slightly less than #5045, which prevented a room from being upgraded multiple times, one after another. This PR still allows that, but just prevents two from happening at the same time.
Mostly just to mitigate the fact that servers are slow and it can take a moment for the room upgrade to actually complete. We don't want people sending another request to upgrade the room when really they just thought the first didn't go through.
