-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
[3/n] [reconfigurator] test that Reconfigurator updates are in server-side topological order #10099
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
Merged
sunshowers
merged 13 commits into
main
from
sunshowers/spr/reconfigurator-test-that-reconfigurator-updates-are-in-server-side-topological-order
Apr 30, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5245858
[spr] initial version
sunshowers a69d102
[spr] changes introduced through rebase
sunshowers 64f2717
rebase on 10193, fixups
sunshowers 36a7124
rebase on main
sunshowers 471b88c
rebase on main, review feedback
sunshowers 9a65610
shorten to ClickHouse
sunshowers 27599f8
rustfmt
sunshowers 6c3f2bd
[spr] changes introduced through rebase
sunshowers 7e538bb
Update, rebase on 10338
sunshowers 47c11d3
[spr] changes introduced through rebase
sunshowers c1ec51d
rebase on main, small tweak
sunshowers 6ff3c27
hakari
sunshowers 83253f6
rebase on main + review feedback
sunshowers File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this mean that:
The first one seems better for the reasons we've previously discussed not wanting to accumulate delta (it makes it harder for future people to see what their changes were) but I guess either is okay right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is the latter, matching the other client-side API versions. I would really like to preserve the property that blessed versions are immutable if at all possible.
One possibility here for future work is introducing something like a minor version (1.1, 1.2, etc), where the minor versions are always wire compatible with the corresponding major version (1.0, etc). Then, we clients can be instructed to send 1.0 in their
api-versionheader rather than 1.1, etc. I haven't fully thought this through so it's possible there are issues with this approach.