Skip to content

[persist] Monoid bound for the diff type in Persist #33127

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

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bkirwi
Copy link
Contributor

@bkirwi bkirwi commented Jul 23, 2025

Motivation

Right now a diff sum of None sometimes means "zero", and sometimes means "unknown". This makes it harder to write assertions on the diffs... replacing a 0-sum batch with a 7-sum batch is clearly bad, but replacing an unknown-sum batch with a 7-sum batch might be fine.

Tips for reviewer

This adds a stronger requirement for all Persist usage. This would probably not be worth it if we thought we were realistically going to use Persist with a non-monoid diff type... but that seems very unlikely, so this seems worth doing to avoid any additional risk of errors.

First commit has the search-and-replace; second commit has a small amount of code that takes advantage of the new bound.

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

@bkirwi bkirwi requested review from aljoscha and a team as code owners July 23, 2025 20:43
@bkirwi bkirwi marked this pull request as draft July 23, 2025 20:43
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.

1 participant