Skip to content

Conversation

@gregns1
Copy link
Contributor

@gregns1 gregns1 commented Feb 12, 2025

CBG-4518

  • Pass up stack more descriptive error when metadata doc is found with no xattr config
  • Added test to test different scenarios returning the new xattr error type added
  • Added code to add db's ties to a bucket into invalid db tracking map when we hit this issue on config poll for a bucket.
  • Added code to fail config update and take tb offline, avoiding a config rollback when this is hit during a db config update.

Pre-review checklist

  • Removed debug logging (fmt.Print, log.Print, ...)
  • Logging sensitive data? Make sure it's tagged (e.g. base.UD(docID), base.MD(dbName))
  • Updated relevant information in the API specifications (such as endpoint descriptions, schemas, ...) in docs/api

Integration Tests

@gregns1 gregns1 assigned torcolvin and unassigned gregns1 Feb 13, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@torcolvin torcolvin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I feel pretty nervous about changing this error still, given how the retry code works here

if legacyErr != nil && !base.IsDocNotFoundError(legacyErr) {

I'd make sure that we have tests in the rest package that cover each of the places IsDocNotFoundError where the error would be hit in config_manager for xattr config.

I think we should pursue writing a document describing the ways that a user can end up this scenario.

@torcolvin torcolvin assigned gregns1 and unassigned torcolvin Feb 18, 2025
@torcolvin torcolvin assigned torcolvin and gregns1 and unassigned gregns1 and torcolvin Feb 28, 2025
@torcolvin
Copy link
Collaborator

It is not clear that this is the correct solution for this problem overall. This adds complexity to server context and might not solve the original problem.

This probably won't be merged as is, and rethinking the problem and deciding if this right approach is correct. It may be that this is OK, but this ticket is not a current priority so closing this PR. This can be considered parked, and reopened when we next work on this ticket.

@torcolvin torcolvin closed this Jul 25, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants