tests: ceph_test_rados_api_watch_notify: LibRadosWatchNotify.AioWatch…

[NitzanMordhai]

…Delete and Watch3Timeout reconnect

During test LibRadosWatchNotify.AioWatchDelete or Watch3Timeout, rados_watch_check can return error -102 if reconnect happened, in that case Broken pipe reconnect and -102 returned

Fixes: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/52129
Signed-off-by: NitzanMordhai nmordech@redhat.com

Checklist

• Tracker (select at least one)
  • References tracker ticket
  • Very recent bug; references commit where it was introduced
  • New feature (ticket optional)
  • Doc update (no ticket needed)
  • Code cleanup (no ticket needed)
• Component impact
  • Affects Dashboard, opened tracker ticket
  • Affects Orchestrator, opened tracker ticket
  • No impact that needs to be tracked
• Documentation (select at least one)
  • Updates relevant documentation
  • No doc update is appropriate
• Tests (select at least one)
  • Includes unit test(s)
  • Includes integration test(s)
  • Includes bug reproducer
  • No tests

Show available Jenkins commands

• jenkins retest this please
• jenkins test classic perf
• jenkins test crimson perf
• jenkins test signed
• jenkins test make check
• jenkins test make check arm64
• jenkins test submodules
• jenkins test dashboard
• jenkins test dashboard cephadm
• jenkins test api
• jenkins test docs
• jenkins render docs
• jenkins test ceph-volume all
• jenkins test ceph-volume tox
• jenkins test windows

[rzarzynski]

Current master normalizes the ENOENT into ENOTCONN at the Objecter layer.

bs::error_code Objecter::_normalize_watch_error(bs::error_code ec)
{
  // translate ENOENT -> ENOTCONN so that a delete->disconnection
  // notification and a failure to reconnect because we raced with
  // the delete appear the same to the user.
  if (ec == bs::errc::no_such_file_or_directory)
    ec = bs::error_code(ENOTCONN, osd_category());
  return ec;
}

However, the mechanism isn't new as it got introduced in 2014 by c1dd92b. Hmm, should the tests mandate this behavior?

[NitzanMordhai]

However, the mechanism isn't new as it got introduced in 2014 by c1dd92b. Hmm, should the tests mandate this behavior?

Most of the return error checked already changed, I don't think we have any more places we are checking for ENOENT -> ENOTCONN

[badone]

Looks OK to me, Radok?

[NitzanMordhai]

However, the mechanism isn't new as it got introduced in 2014 by c1dd92b. Hmm, should the tests mandate this behavior?
linger_check doesn't do any normalize of watch error. that is the reason we still need to check both errors

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity for 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs for another 30 days.
If you are a maintainer or core committer, please follow-up on this pull request to identify what steps should be taken by the author to move this proposed change forward.
If you are the author of this pull request, thank you for your proposed contribution. If you believe this change is still appropriate, please ensure that any feedback has been addressed and ask for a code review.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically closed because there has been no activity for 90 days. Please feel free to reopen this pull request (or open a new one) if the proposed change is still appropriate. Thank you for your contribution!