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

[0.780.x] Use undertow 2.2.24.Final #6505

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 5, 2023

Conversation

schlosna
Copy link
Contributor

@schlosna schlosna commented Apr 4, 2023

General

Before this PR:
AtlasDB releases [0.760.0-0.784.0) were incorrectly depending on undertow 2.3.x requiring jakarta.* rather than javax.* dependencies from https://github.com//pull/6354 / https://github.com/palantir/atlasdb/commit/cbb495e35ec3de60794ef4bdb186f6720b6f8190

After this PR:

==COMMIT_MSG==
[0.780.x] Use undertow 2.2.24.Final
==COMMIT_MSG==

Priority:

Concerns / possible downsides (what feedback would you like?):

Is documentation needed?:

Compatibility

Does this PR create any API breaks (e.g. at the Java or HTTP layers) - if so, do we have compatibility?:

Does this PR change the persisted format of any data - if so, do we have forward and backward compatibility?:

The code in this PR may be part of a blue-green deploy. Can upgrades from previous versions safely coexist? (Consider restarts of blue or green nodes.):

Does this PR rely on statements being true about other products at a deployment - if so, do we have correct product dependencies on these products (or other ways of verifying that these statements are true)?:

Does this PR need a schema migration?

Testing and Correctness

What, if any, assumptions are made about the current state of the world? If they change over time, how will we find out?:

What was existing testing like? What have you done to improve it?:

If this PR contains complex concurrent or asynchronous code, is it correct? The onus is on the PR writer to demonstrate this.:

If this PR involves acquiring locks or other shared resources, how do we ensure that these are always released?:

Execution

How would I tell this PR works in production? (Metrics, logs, etc.):

Has the safety of all log arguments been decided correctly?:

Will this change significantly affect our spending on metrics or logs?:

How would I tell that this PR does not work in production? (monitors, etc.):

If this PR does not work as expected, how do I fix that state? Would rollback be straightforward?:

If the above plan is more complex than “recall and rollback”, please tag the support PoC here (if it is the end of the week, tag both the current and next PoC):

Scale

Would this PR be expected to pose a risk at scale? Think of the shopping product at our largest stack.:

Would this PR be expected to perform a large number of database calls, and/or expensive database calls (e.g., row range scans, concurrent CAS)?:

Would this PR ever, with time and scale, become the wrong thing to do - and if so, how would we know that we need to do something differently?:

Development Process

Where should we start reviewing?:

If this PR is in excess of 500 lines excluding versions lock-files, why does it not make sense to split it?:

Please tag any other people who should be aware of this PR:
@jeremyk-91
@sverma30
@raiju

@schlosna schlosna marked this pull request as ready for review April 5, 2023 15:24
Copy link
Contributor Author

@schlosna schlosna left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@schlosna schlosna merged commit c73f259 into release/0.780.x Apr 5, 2023
@schlosna schlosna deleted the ds/0.780.x/fix-undertow-deps branch April 5, 2023 15:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants