CURATOR-489: CreateBuilderImpl assigns protectedId if doProtected is … #284
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
Maybe a separate issue for that. Do you mind writing a test for this please? |
|
Actually - I just opened a PR on your repo with a test |
Added test for async create protected
|
Ok, that test is incorporated here now. 👍 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 is a light change to correct a bug when
doProtectedis true: the existing code setsCreateBuilderImpl.doProtected = true, but assignsprotectedId = null, resulting in a non-unique protection-token (_c_null-) being applied to the name created in zookeeper. Given that all replicas coordinating via zookeeper would use the identical token, this could conceivably lead to incorrect behavior when the protection logic is needed.While I believe this PR fixes the bug, I'd really suggest a more comprehensive change to eliminate the
CreateBuilderImpl.doProtectedfield entirely, instead relying uponprotectedId != nullto convey this intention. However, being unfamiliar with the nuances of the existing implementation, I didn't want to perform that surgery today. If you think that change seems preferable, I'd be happy to do that instead.