maintainer: avoid racy field access in schedule test

[3AceShowHand]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #4297

TestMaintainerSchedule reads maintainer.postBootstrapMsg from the test goroutine while the maintainer event loop writes it, which causes race-detector flakes.

What is changed and how it works?

• Replace the Eventually check to avoid reading non-atomic internal field directly.
• Use maintainer.initialized.Load() together with maintainer.ddlSpan.IsWorking().

Tests

• go test -race ./maintainer -run '^TestMaintainerSchedule$' -count=50

Release note

`None`

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves a race condition within the TestMaintainerSchedule test. The issue stemmed from the test goroutine directly accessing a non-atomic internal field (postBootstrapMsg) while it was being concurrently modified by the maintainer's event loop. The fix involves updating the test's Eventually assertion to safely check the initialized status using an atomic load operation, thereby eliminating the flaky race condition and improving test reliability.

Highlights

• Race Condition Fix: Addressed a race condition in TestMaintainerSchedule where the test goroutine was reading maintainer.postBootstrapMsg concurrently with the maintainer event loop writing to it, causing test flakes.
• Test Assertion Update: Modified the Eventually check in the test to use maintainer.initialized.Load() in conjunction with maintainer.ddlSpan.IsWorking(), replacing direct access to a non-atomic internal field.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• maintainer/maintainer_test.go
  • Updated the require.Eventually condition to use maintainer.initialized.Load() instead of maintainer.postBootstrapMsg == nil to prevent a race condition.

Activity

• No human activity (comments, reviews, etc.) has been recorded for this pull request yet.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A test condition was updated to use an atomic flag (initialized) instead of reading a non-atomic field (postBootstrapMsg), eliminating a data race condition while preserving the same logical test behavior.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test Concurrency Fix maintainer/maintainer_test.go	Replaced unsafe read of postBootstrapMsg with thread-safe atomic initialized flag check to prevent data race in test assertion.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related issues

• flaky test: data race in TestMaintainerSchedule on postBootstrapMsg #4297: Directly addresses the data race by replacing the unsafe field read with a thread-safe atomic flag check.

Poem

A rabbit hops through code so fair,
Where races once were lurking there,
With atoms bold and flags so bright,
The test now reads what's safe and right!
🐰✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main change: fixing racy field access in the maintainer schedule test by replacing a non-atomic field check with thread-safe alternatives.
Description check	✅ Passed	The PR description includes all required sections with clear problem statement and solution details.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a race condition in TestMaintainerSchedule. The change replaces a racy read of an internal field with a thread-safe atomic load to check for initialization. This not only resolves the data race but also makes the test logic more robust by waiting for the bootstrap process to complete. The implementation is correct.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a data race in TestMaintainerSchedule that was detected by the race detector. The test was reading the non-atomic postBootstrapMsg field from the test goroutine while the maintainer event loop was writing to it concurrently, causing race-detector flakes.

Changes:

• Replace racy field access postBootstrapMsg == nil with atomic field access initialized.Load() in the test's Eventually check
• Add explanatory comment about avoiding non-atomic field access from test goroutine

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2026-02-27 10:20:14.827389543 +0000 UTC m=+5038.746555611: ☑️ agreed by lidezhu.
• 2026-02-27 12:39:27.435542529 +0000 UTC m=+13391.354708620: ☑️ agreed by tenfyzhong.

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: hongyunyan, lidezhu, tenfyzhong

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [hongyunyan,lidezhu,tenfyzhong]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[3AceShowHand]

/test all

[3AceShowHand]

/test all

[3AceShowHand]

/test all

[3AceShowHand]

/test all