Skip to content

chore: replace dcheck with check for partial sync #5277

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

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

kostasrim
Copy link
Contributor

I replaced the DCHECK with CHECK because #5275

I will revert this commit once we debug this.

@@ -111,11 +111,11 @@ void JournalSlice::CallOnChange(JournalItem* item) {
// We preserve order here. After ConsumeJournalChange there can reordering
if (ring_buffer_.size() == ring_buffer_.capacity()) {
const size_t bytes_removed = ring_buffer_.front().data.size() + sizeof(*item);
DCHECK_GE(ring_buffer_bytes, bytes_removed);
CHECK_EQ(ring_buffer_bytes, bytes_removed);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we are about to revert this, I suggest adding a todo here or creating an issue.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no need, I will revert this as part of the PR that fixes #5275

vyavdoshenko
vyavdoshenko previously approved these changes Jun 11, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@vyavdoshenko vyavdoshenko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@adiholden
Copy link
Collaborator

but why merge this? you can run regression tests on this branch and see if this check fails when the test is failing

@kostasrim
Copy link
Contributor Author

but why merge this? you can run regression tests on this branch and see if this check fails when the test is failing

yeah I wanted this to run on the night just in case it would not fail if I added a loop -- anyway I can prioritize this now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants