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

fix s3 delete policy #1550

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 22, 2024
Merged

fix s3 delete policy #1550

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 22, 2024

Conversation

vangheem
Copy link
Contributor

@vangheem vangheem commented Nov 6, 2023

Description

Describe the proposed changes made in this PR.

How was this PR tested?

Describe how you tested this PR.

@vangheem vangheem requested a review from a team as a code owner November 6, 2023 22:34
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 6, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (3479547) 85.15% compared to head (3d0d182) 85.15%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1550   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.15%   85.15%           
=======================================
  Files         455      455           
  Lines       25608    25608           
=======================================
  Hits        21806    21806           
  Misses       3802     3802           
Flag Coverage Δ
ingest 75.42% <ø> (ø)
nucliadb 68.10% <ø> (ø)
reader 77.09% <ø> (ø)
sdk 43.04% <ø> (ø)
search 83.38% <ø> (ø)
train 62.21% <ø> (ø)
utils 85.15% <ø> (ø)
writer 85.02% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Coverage Δ
nucliadb_utils/nucliadb_utils/storages/s3.py 69.86% <ø> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you explain what the problem was and in which way have you fixed it?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can explain @lferran , as i asked Nathan these changes yesterday night: https://github.com/nuclia/backend/pull/1145/files

I fact i see he forgot to add the create bucket changes on this pr i reference.

Also, aside of cypress e2e tests that rely on being able to create a kb and expect that to be deleted "quickly", i think deleting a kb to reuse afterwards shouldn't be a usual problem, but you may need to think about it. There's always the option to iterate the bucket objects and delete them (one by one or in batches of 100 IIRC), but this is time and $ consuming, that's why we do the schedule delete + async delete (on purge) right now.

@lferran lferran merged commit 875677d into main Jan 22, 2024
72 checks passed
@lferran lferran deleted the s3-delete-policy branch January 22, 2024 08:17
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.

None yet

3 participants