Add a constraint check for suspend column #4546
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This adds a new metadata constraint check for the suspend metadata column to ensure that the suspension time is not negative as we should never have a negative value. This is a follow on to apache#4494
keith-turner
approved these changes
May 17, 2024
server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/constraints/MetadataConstraints.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/constraints/MetadataConstraints.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a new metadata constraint check for the suspend metadata column to ensure that the suspension time is not negative as we should never have a negative value.
This is a follow on to #4494 as I realized when working on that we should probably add a validation check for this
I wasn't sure if we should target this at 2.1 or 3.1 but for now this is targeting 3.1 because there is a (probably very small) risk in 2.1 of something breaking if there was an unexpected negative that existed. Although maybe this isn't a big concern if an existing negative would still cause things to break in other ways (I haven't traced through to see)