Skip to content
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

hammer: rgw: fix inconsistent uid/email handling in radosgw-admin #11952

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Nov 23, 2016

Conversation

smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes the email address inconsistency documented in upstream
Ceph BUG ceph#13598

Signed-off-by: Matt Benjamin <mbenjamin@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 4c438db)
Fixes the error return inconsistency documented in upstream
Ceph issue ceph#13598

Revised after upstream review, permits changing email address as
originally (but use case-insensitive comp).

Signed-off-by: Matt Benjamin <mbenjamin@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 90c143e)

Conflicts:
	src/rgw/rgw_user.cc (there is no op_state.found_by_email
        conditional in hammer)
@smithfarm smithfarm self-assigned this Nov 13, 2016
@smithfarm smithfarm added this to the hammer milestone Nov 13, 2016
@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title hammer: radosgw-admin: inconsistency in uid/email handling hammer: rgw: fix inconsistent uid/email handling in radosgw-admin Nov 16, 2016
smithfarm added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2016
…ndling in radosgw-admin

Reviewed-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>
smithfarm added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 20, 2016
…ndling in radosgw-admin

Reviewed-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>
@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oritwas This PR was tested by rgw suite as described here: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17151#note-11

All tests passed except one that failed with "saw valgrind issues" - see http://pulpito.front.sepia.ceph.com/smithfarm-2016-11-18_10:00:20-rgw-hammer-backports---basic-smithi/558612/

Do you think this PR is OK to merge? Also, can you help debug that failed test?

@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oritwas I looked at the failed test and described my analysis in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17151#note-11 ( it looks like a case of http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13529 )

@oritwas
Copy link
Member

oritwas commented Nov 21, 2016

lgtm

smithfarm added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2016
…ndling in radosgw-admin

Reviewed-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>
smithfarm added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2016
…ndling in radosgw-admin

Reviewed-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>
@smithfarm smithfarm merged commit 118beb9 into ceph:hammer Nov 23, 2016
@smithfarm smithfarm deleted the wip-16318-hammer branch November 23, 2016 09:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants