This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 9, 2023. It is now read-only.
Fixed migration of docker content when corrupted content has been #352
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
| Handled properly skipping of corrupted or missing docker content. |
This file contains 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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
i am pretty sure i have screwed up the indentation since at least the counter sduring the migration got off, but the gist of this change is that we cannot
continuewhen artifact is None due to the content that has futures, those futures need to be resolved otherwise we would get into the problem where in one batch there would be manifests+tags( in the ContentSaverStage), and since tags rely on manifests being already saved at the tags _pre_save_hook() tags won't have needed information at the save() time.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.
we also need to check with @quba42 on how this change will impact debian pipeline.
I have checked rpm one - it does have futures -Rpms, that are getting resolved and then in the interrelate stage relation betwen modules and rpms are created. For the case when a modular rpm would miss, there would be created one relation less. tldr - rpm plugin is not impacted.
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.
I am not 100% sure.
Here is what I do rely on: Later types in the order given by the ordered dict
DebMigrator.content_models, may query for the objects created by earlier types from theircreate_pulp3_content()method. e.g.:Currently, if such queries return
None, the pipeline will fail.I understand I need to add graceful handling for the case that this query will return
Nonebecause the target content was never created because it's artifact was corrupt, and it was therefore skipped (should be trivial to do).Edit: See #353 (perhaps not quite as trivial as I had hoped).
I am not sure if there can also be a case were the query returns
Nonebecause the target content has not yet passed sufficiently far through the pipeline, which would be a bigger problem...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 should not be the case because debian package is a future type content and will be resolved/saved/skipped if corrupted/ by the time PackageReleaseComponent content will be saved.