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

Use explicit port on CloudDiscovery for private address #16371

Conversation

sancar
Copy link
Contributor

@sancar sancar commented Dec 30, 2019

In certain scenarios like AWS private link, public and private
addresses can not have same port. Let the client use the explicit
private address if it is provided.
If it is not given explicitly, the client will use the port of public
address for the private address as before to maintain backward
compatibility.

@sancar sancar added this to the 4.0 milestone Dec 30, 2019
@sancar sancar requested a review from a team as a code owner December 30, 2019 07:45
@sancar sancar self-assigned this Dec 30, 2019
This was referenced Dec 30, 2019
@sancar
Copy link
Contributor Author

sancar commented Dec 30, 2019

Unrelated test failure
com.hazelcast.client.impl.proxy.ClientDistributedObjectListenerTest.testDestroyEventReceived_WhenDestroyedByServer

java.lang.AssertionError: Create event failed. unexpectedObjectName:null expected:<1> but was:<2>
	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:834)
	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:645)
	at com.hazelcast.core.DistributedObjectListenerTest.lambda$testDestroyEventReceived_WhenDestroyedByServer$3(DistributedObjectListenerTest.java:167)
	at com.hazelcast.test.HazelcastTestSupport.assertTrueEventually(HazelcastTestSupport.java:1356)
	at com.hazelcast.test.HazelcastTestSupport.assertTrueEventually(HazelcastTestSupport.java:1458)
	at com.hazelcast.core.DistributedObjectListenerTest.testDestroyEventReceived_WhenDestroyedByServer(DistributedObjectListenerTest.java:174)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
	at com.hazelcast.test.FailOnTimeoutStatement$CallableStatement.call(FailOnTimeoutStatement.java:114)
	at com.hazelcast.test.FailOnTimeoutStatement$CallableStatement.call(FailOnTimeoutStatement.java:106)
	at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)

Seems related to recent changes here #16347
@ihsandemir

@sancar sancar changed the title Use explicit port on CloudDiscovery for private address [WIP] Use explicit port on CloudDiscovery for private address Dec 30, 2019
@sancar sancar changed the title [WIP] Use explicit port on CloudDiscovery for private address Use explicit port on CloudDiscovery for private address Jan 2, 2020
In certain scenarios like AWS private link, public and private
addresses can not have same port. Let the client use the explicit
private address if it is provided.
If it is not given explicitly, the client will use the port of public
address for the private address as before to maintain backward
compatibility.
@sancar sancar force-pushed the fix/privateAddressWithPortOnCloudDiscovery/master branch from 6235ed2 to 565a38f Compare January 9, 2020 07:41
@sancar sancar merged commit 865162e into hazelcast:master Jan 9, 2020
@sancar sancar deleted the fix/privateAddressWithPortOnCloudDiscovery/master branch January 9, 2020 08:32
@mmedenjak mmedenjak added the Source: Internal PR or issue was opened by an employee label Apr 13, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Source: Internal PR or issue was opened by an employee Team: Client Type: Enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants