Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
* storage: Replace usage of sync/atomic with uber-go/atomic
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* tsdb: Replace usage of sync/atomic with uber-go/atomic
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* web: Replace usage of sync/atomic with uber-go/atomic
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* notifier: Replace usage of sync/atomic with uber-go/atomic
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* cmd: Replace usage of sync/atomic with uber-go/atomic
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* scripts: Verify that we are not using restricted packages
It checks that we are not directly importing 'sync/atomic'.
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* Reorganise imports in blocks
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* notifier/test: Apply PR suggestions
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* storage/remote: avoid storing references on newEntry
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* Revert "scripts: Verify that we are not using restricted packages"
This reverts commit 278d32748e.
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
* web: Group imports accordingly
Signed-off-by: Javier Palomo <javier.palomo.almena@gmail.com>
The desired shards calculation now properly keeps track of the rate of
pending samples, and uses the previously unused integralAccumulator to
adjust for missing information in the desired shards calculation.
Also, configure more capacity for each shard. The default 10 capacity
causes shards to block on each other while
sending remote requests. Default to a 500 sample capacity and explain in
the documentation that having more capacity will help throughput.
Signed-off-by: Chris Marchbanks <csmarchbanks@gmail.com>
