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
Default multihop tombstone is effectively None #5110
Comments
thank you for the investigation. I think the real problem is that we write the default to cache. Also, setting to none on conversion error isn't the best idea. @bari12 , WDYT? |
Writing the default to cache is good in principle, this way we still minimise having to do database interaction in case the default is used. In principle dogpile supports writing the actual value (with type) to the cache and also retrieve it like that. I am not exactly sure why we cast it to string here. But I am a little bit concerned of changing this now and what side-effects this could result in. |
A workaround is to set |
…_cache Transfers: don't allow timedelta obj in tombstone_from_delay. Fix #5110
It is an additional case to handle, which already had a nasty bug. Rather than trying to handle the special case, simplify the code.
…io#5110 It is an additional case to handle, which already had a nasty bug. Rather than trying to handle the special case, simplify the code.
Motivation
In
rucio/lib/rucio/core/transfer.py
Line 103 in d59c237
a
DEFAULT_MULTIHOP_TOMBSTONE_DELAY
is set, and then inrucio/lib/rucio/core/transfer.py
Line 1440 in d59c237
the default value is passed if no runtime configuration is set. The problem is, all cache values are converted to string in
rucio/lib/rucio/core/config.py
Line 191 in d59c237
which means that the actual default value ends up being the string
'2:00:00'
, and later on intombstone_from_delay
we get a ValueError which is converted toNone
rucio/lib/rucio/core/replica.py
Lines 1424 to 1428 in d59c237
hence no tombstone unless
transfers.multihop_tombstone_delay
is explicitly set (or if the RSE has amultihop_tombstone_delay
attribute)Modification
Set
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: