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

[9.0] Job parameters: use only OpenSearch #7292

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 17, 2024

Conversation

fstagni
Copy link
Contributor

@fstagni fstagni commented Nov 14, 2023

BEGINRELEASENOTES

*WMS
CHANGE: only use Elastic/OpenSearch for storing JobParameters
CHANGE: ElasticJobParameters index new names: JobParameters_indexSplt

ENDRELEASENOTES

@fstagni fstagni force-pushed the jobParameters_v9 branch 4 times, most recently from 17a570d to 2a4c139 Compare November 14, 2023 17:10
@fstagni fstagni force-pushed the jobParameters_v9 branch 2 times, most recently from a8b07ce to 3072e6f Compare November 28, 2023 16:34
@fstagni fstagni marked this pull request as ready for review November 28, 2023 16:35
@fstagni fstagni changed the title Job parameters v9 [9.0] Job parameters: use only OpenSearch Nov 28, 2023
@arrabito
Copy link
Contributor

I would have also a related but more general question about index prefix naming.
How do you manage the index prefix naming when you have 2 DIRAC instances (example a production one and a certification one) using the same OpenSearch service? I mean, do you give different index prefix names to distinguish between the 2 instances or do you use the same naming and 2 different tenants (I don't know if it's possible though).
I ask this here, because it can have an impact on this PR and it goes in the sense of make the index prefix name configurable also for job parameters.

@fstagni
Copy link
Contributor Author

fstagni commented Mar 18, 2024

We normally use different OpenSearch instances for different DIRAC setups (same as we do not mix MySQL databases).

@fstagni fstagni force-pushed the jobParameters_v9 branch 4 times, most recently from 464f248 to 4b9ff30 Compare March 21, 2024 14:18
@fstagni fstagni force-pushed the jobParameters_v9 branch 2 times, most recently from 3944d76 to f7d5702 Compare April 16, 2024 11:49
)
if not result["OK"]:
return result
self.elasticJobParametersDB = result["Value"]()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is that try/except for RuntimeError that was there before, really no longer needed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then it's ObjectLoader().loadObject() that should catch that. Do you agree?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, the throwing comes from calling the c'tor of ElasticJobParametersDB in this line here, doesn't it?

        self.elasticJobParametersDB = result["Value"]()
                                                     ^^

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct. But, anyway, this is initialize() and it's OK to see the exception, if it happens.

@fstagni fstagni merged commit 09da32c into DIRACGrid:integration Apr 17, 2024
23 of 24 checks passed
@DIRACGridBot DIRACGridBot added the sweep:ignore Prevent sweeping from being ran for this PR label Apr 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
sweep:ignore Prevent sweeping from being ran for this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants