Fix infra clone handle search tables

[flomonster]

What is done

• The clone operation is done in an sql transaction (close #6716)
• We disable search triggers and fill the tables manually
  • Fix: Can't search in a cloned infra
• Clone the layer_neutral_section (fix #7663)
• Clone the layer_neutral_sign
• Clone the layer_psl_sign

[!IMPORTANT] We have a minor drawback. While an infra is cloned we take a full lock on track, signal and op tables. This temporarily blocks several types of operation.

Profiling

[!NOTE] Time wasted duplicating forgotten layers is regained by deactivating triggers.

Before

TOTAL: 19s

• Clone infra_object_track_section in 2002ms
• Clone infra_layer_track_section in 900ms
• Clone infra_object_signal in 2490ms
• Clone infra_layer_signal in 409ms
• Clone infra_object_speed_section in 810ms
• Clone infra_layer_speed_section in 6319ms
• Clone infra_object_detector in 474ms
• Clone infra_layer_detector in 566ms
• Clone infra_object_neutral_section in 14ms
• Clone infra_object_switch in 260ms
• Clone infra_layer_switch in 321ms
• Clone infra_object_extended_switch_type in 0ms
• Clone infra_object_buffer_stop in 22ms
• Clone infra_layer_buffer_stop in 26ms
• Clone infra_object_route in 545ms
• Clone infra_object_operational_point in 896ms
• Clone infra_layer_operational_point in 281ms
• Clone infra_object_electrification in 24ms
• Clone infra_layer_electrification in 402ms
• Clone errors in 2753ms

After

TOTAL: 19s

• Clone infra_object_track_section in 786ms 🚀
• Clone infra_layer_track_section in 877ms
• Clone infra_object_signal in 329ms 🚀
• Clone infra_layer_signal in 418ms
• Clone infra_object_speed_section in 1054ms
• Clone infra_layer_speed_section in 6596ms ⚠️ (We should try to reduce the number of speed sections)
• Clone infra_object_detector in 444ms
• Clone infra_layer_detector in 560ms
• Clone infra_object_neutral_section in 14ms
• Clone infra_object_switch in 230ms
• Clone infra_layer_switch in 303ms
• Clone infra_object_extended_switch_type in 0ms
• Clone infra_object_buffer_stop in 22ms
• Clone infra_layer_buffer_stop in 26ms
• Clone infra_object_route in 512ms
• Clone infra_object_operational_point in 90ms
• Clone infra_layer_operational_point in 276ms 🚀
• Clone infra_object_electrification in 24ms
• Clone infra_layer_electrification in 378ms
• Clone errors in 2647ms

New:

• Clone search_signal in 1707ms 🐢
• Clone search_track in 10ms
• Clone search_operational_point in 314ms 🐢
• Clone infra_layer_neutral_section in 15ms
• Clone infra_layer_psl_sign in 174ms
• Clone infra_layer_neutral_sign in 52ms

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 28.54%. Comparing base (9f12cd4) to head (5815ab3).

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## dev #7853 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 28.54% 28.54% Complexity 2059 2059 ========================================= Files 1249 1249 Lines 154170 154190 +20 Branches 3039 3039 ========================================= + Hits 44006 44014 +8 - Misses 108351 108363 +12 Partials 1813 1813 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [core](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `74.95% <ø> (ø)` | | | [editoast](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `71.66% <100.00%> (-0.03%)` | :arrow_down: | | [front](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `10.01% <ø> (ø)` | | | [gateway](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `2.34% <ø> (ø)` | | | [railjson_generator](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `87.49% <ø> (ø)` | | | [tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/OpenRailAssociation/osrd/pull/7853/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `72.93% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[leovalais]

LGTM

Why did you drop try_join_all ? Is it incompatible with the transaction ?

A transaction can only apply to a single connection. Besides, the new testing utils makes it harder to test functions that open multiple connections. And an endpoint opening multiple connections can starve others.

I guess it's one of these reasons ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[flomonster]

LGTM Why did you drop try_join_all ? Is it incompatible with the transaction ?

A transaction can only apply to a single connection. Besides, the new testing utils makes it harder to test functions that open multiple connections. And an endpoint opening multiple connections can starve others.

I guess it's one of these reasons ¯(ツ)/¯

In addition, there was a comment with the try_join_all:

When creating a connection for each objet, it will a panic with 'Cannot access shared transaction state' in the database pool Just one connection fixes it, but partially* defeats the purpose of joining all the requests at the end

• AsyncPgConnection supports pipeling within one connection, but it won’t run parallel