Opened 6 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#29867 closed Bug (fixed)
Allow cache.get_or_set() to cache a None result
Reported by: | Phill Tornroth | Owned by: | Nick Pope |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Core (Cache system) | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
get_or_set
docstring says "If the key does not exist, add the key and set it to the default value." -- but that's not quite what it does. It will perform a set if the key doesn't exist, or if the cached value is None.
I think in order to be doing what it says on the tin it'd need to be:
if self.has_key(key, version=version): return self.get(key, version=version) else: if callable(default): default = default() self.add(key, default, timeout=timeout, version=version) # Fetch the value again to avoid a race condition if another # caller added a value between the first get() and the add() # above. return self.get(key, default, version=version)
I'd find this useful in cases where None was an expensive result to arrive at. If there's spiritual alignment with the suggestion, I'm happy to prepare and submit a change with tests.
Change History (15)
follow-up: 3 comment:1 by , 6 years ago
Summary: | cache.get_or_set won't cache None results → Allow cache.get_or_set() to cache a None result |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
comment:2 by , 6 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:3 by , 6 years ago
Replying to Tim Graham:
I agree with your analysis. I read through previous related issues (#26792, #28601) and didn't see a good reason for the current behavior. I would question if
if default is not None:
should be there in your proposal (i.e. why shouldn'tNone
by cached?).
You're right, I sketched that out too quickly and shouldn't write code in bug trackers (edited) :) I'll put a PR up with code that I have some evidence is working.
comment:4 by , 6 years ago
So it turns out the issue I'm identifying is very intentional behavior. In working on a fix I ran into tests that explicitly defend the behavior.
Commit: https://github.com/django/django/commit/4d60261b2a77460b4c127c3d832518b95e11a0ac
Bug the behavior addresses: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/28601
I'm confused by the ticket #28601 though. I agree that the inconsistency of a callable vs literal default was concerning, but I think I disagree with the solution to treat None as a unique value. I'd argue that None ought to be a validly cached value and that in the context of the original ticket the behavior ought to be:
cache.get_or_set('foo', None) # None cache.get_or_set('foo', 5) # None, because we just said so cache.get('foo') # None :) cache.get_or_set('bar', lambda: None) # None cache.get_or_set('bar', 5) # None, because we just said so cache.get('bar') # None :)
Want to raise this though in case my take here is controversial. Tim, it looks like you stewarded that fix in so maybe this link jogs your memory? Let me know if with this context you disagree with my proposed solution. If there's still consensus I have a PR just about ready.
comment:5 by , 6 years ago
Oh apologies, I just noted that you already read through #26801 in considering this ticket so I'll carry on an put a Pull Request up that modifies the tests which expect this behavior.
follow-up: 8 comment:6 by , 6 years ago
Okay, I put up a pull request here: https://github.com/django/django/pull/10558
This would be a breaking change (though I'd imagine dependent code would be rare, and it's much more likely this would improve existing code that isn't aware it's not benefiting from caching in these cases). Anyone who was depending on re-calling a callable default that returns None would need to change their expectation. I'm struggling to imagine what those cases look like, but in those cases I image they'd be best served by not using get_or_set
and instead inspecting the results of has_key
or get
directly and then do something special when None
is the cached value.
comment:7 by , 6 years ago
So this change is more complicated than I thought/hoped as it turns out. Not all cache backends have a bespoke implementation of has_key
and the base cache implementation for has_key
simply does return self.get(key, version=version) is not None
.
The cache code depends pretty severely on default=None
being the absence of a default, instead of a normal value. Right now the MemCache and PyLibMCCache tests are failing as a result (has_key
returns False
and cached None
is treated as a miss).
Additionally I don't love that introducing has_key
into the get_or_set
logic will introduce an additional cache round trip that wasn't there before. Ideally the get
method wouldn't treat None
as the lack of a default and we'd have another way to detect a cache miss (raise KeyDoesNotExist()
maybe) -- but that's obviously a large change to introduce that effectively incurs a major version change of the django cache API contracts, and it's plausible that a number of the backend libraries will also not provide enough information for their cache backends to know the difference between a missing key and a None/null cached value.
So choices that occur to me are:
1/ Maintain current status quo. Update the get_or_set
documentation to be more accurate about the implementation.
2/ The cache system is modified somewhat extensively to support None
as a cacheable concept (essentially base class functionality and contracts are changed to assume they can depend on this behavior across cache backends).
3/ Leave the behavior for None
up to the individual cache backends, and consider the current proposed get_or_set implementation for LocMemCache.
I find option 1 fairly compelling, frankly. I was using LocMemCache in a production situation but most uses are likely to be in testing where there's broader community benefit for it working similarly to other caches. Confused users may be more likely to discover caching None
isn't likely to work across backends if LocMemCache behaves more similarly to existing backends.
So I find myself un-recommending my own proposal and updating the documentation instead (which I'm happy to put a new PR up for if that's consensus).
comment:9 by , 5 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:10 by , 5 years ago
I've created a PR against the issue.
https://github.com/django/django/pull/11812
The issue is fixed now.
comment:12 by , 4 years ago
Patch needs improvement: | set |
---|
I think we should move forward with Nick's PR which is to handle None
in all affected methods. Marking as "needs improvement" because it's still PoC.
comment:13 by , 4 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Patch needs improvement: | unset |
Version: | 2.1 → master |
I polished off my PR.
This fixes all operations that make use of .get()
without passing a default argument.
comment:14 by , 4 years ago
Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
---|
I agree with your analysis. I read through previous related issues (#26792, #28601) and didn't see a good reason for the current behavior. I would question if
if default is not None:
should be there in your proposal (i.e. why shouldn'tNone
by cached?).