Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

Remove row locks in the CBE applet that protect no invariant

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#916 0 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
28/100
Tipo de issue
Refactorización
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
django, mysql, python
Área
backend, databases, testing

Línea de trabajo

Start by locating the CBE applet’s select_for_update() calls and tracing the writers that change the criteria rows they lock. For each lock, identify the invariant it protects, check whether MySQL constraints or concurrent writers make it necessary, and record the lock order. Add MySQL-only tests for the stated concurrency scenarios; done means criteria invariants hold, overlapping requests avoid deadlocks, and single-request responses remain unchanged.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

User Story

As a platform operator running many courses on one Open edX instance, I want the database locks in the competency code to be used only where they prevent data from getting corrupted. Then authoring requests stay fast, and the criteria data stays correct.

Description

The competency-based education (CBE) applet takes database row locks in several of its write paths via select_for_update() calls. But not all of them are strictly necessary: if they don't protect a real case of data corruption, or if the risk of deadlocks or complicated concurrency problem outweighs the benefits, they should be removed. Where they stay, a comment should justify them.

Acceptance Criteria

Scenarios 1 to 6 are verifiable against MySQL, where row locks take effect. SQLite, which the default test settings use, ignores them.

Scenario: A lock stays only when it protects an invariant the schema cannot enforce
  Given a row lock in the CBE applet
  When a reviewer examines it
  Then the reviewer can name the invariant it protects
  And can show that no database constraint on MySQL expresses that invariant
  And the lock is removed if either of those cannot be shown

Scenario: A lock stays only when a concurrent writer can violate its invariant today
  Given a row lock in the CBE applet that protects a stated invariant
  When a reviewer lists the writers in the codebase that can change the rows the invariant covers
  Then the lock stays only if at least two of those writers, or two concurrent requests through one writer, can violate the invariant when the lock is absent
  And a lock that defends against a writer that does not exist in the codebase is removed

Scenario: A lock that only prevents a harmless duplicate is removed
  Given a row lock whose only benefit is that a repeated identical request waits and then does nothing
  When the lock is removed and two identical requests run at the same time
  Then both requests complete
  And the stored criteria data is correct and consistent
  And the only difference is a redundant history entry

Scenario: A lock covers only the rows its invariant spans
  Given a competency used by two different courses
  When an author in the first course submits a request that holds a lock
  Then an author in the second course is blocked by that request only if the invariant being protected spans both courses

Scenario: Concurrent requests keep the criteria invariants
  Given two requests that run at the same time, each creating the first criterion for the same competency
  When both complete
  Then the competency has exactly one root criteria group
  And no object has two criteria for the same competency
  And no course holds a criterion for a competency together with a criterion for one of its ancestor or descendant competencies

Scenario: Overlapping concurrent requests do not deadlock
  Given two requests that run at the same time and update overlapping sets of criteria listed in opposite order
  When both run to completion
  Then neither fails with a deadlock
  And the final state equals the state after running them one after the other
  And, for every pair of locks that any transaction in the applet takes, all transactions take them in the same relative order

Scenario: A single request gets the same response after a lock is removed
  Given any request to a CBE endpoint that previously completed or was rejected
  When the same request is sent alone after the change
  Then the response status, the response body, and the order of items in the body are unchanged
  And a batch request still succeeds or fails as a unit

Scenario: Concurrency scenarios are tested
  Given a lock that is kept or removed
  Then there are tests covering all important concurrency scenarios
  And they are MySQL-only tests that asserts outcomes rather than the locks taken

Reviewer confirms at code review time:

  • Every row lock that remains has a comment naming the invariant it protects and its position in the lock order relative to any other lock the same transaction can take.
  • For every row lock that was kept, a comment justifies the reasoning.
  • Wherever a removed lock had fixed the order in which rows are written, that order is now stated explicitly in the code.
  • MySQL-only Tests assert the behavior in the most important concurrency scenarios.
Lenguaje dominante
Python
Estrellas
10
Forks
33
Merge medio
4 d 2 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
31

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de openedx/openedx-core

Todos los issues de openedx/openedx-core

Issues similares

Más issues de Python

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.