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
Incorrect FTS transfer_link on messages sent by receiver #5640
Comments
rcarpa
added a commit
to rcarpa/rucio
that referenced
this issue
Jun 13, 2022
…o#5640 Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the db table, which has the correct format. We can ignore the occurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link.
rcarpa
added a commit
to rcarpa/rucio
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2022
…o#5640 Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the db table, which has the correct format. We can ignore the occurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link.
rcarpa
added a commit
to rcarpa/rucio
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2022
…o#5640 Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the db table, which has the correct format. We can ignore the occurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link.
rcarpa
added a commit
to rcarpa/rucio
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2022
…o#5640 Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the db table, which has the correct format. We can ignore the occurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link.
rcarpa
added a commit
to rcarpa/rucio
that referenced
this issue
Jul 1, 2022
…o#5640 Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the db table, which has the correct format. We can ignore the occurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link.
bari12
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 2, 2022
Monitoring & Logging: fix transfer_link sent by receiver. Closes #5640
bari12
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 2, 2022
Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the db table, which has the correct format. We can ignore the occurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Motivation
The transfer_link is generated here:
rucio/lib/rucio/transfertool/fts3.py
Line 396 in 07fb277
Which uses external_host as passed into the constructor:
rucio/lib/rucio/daemons/conveyor/receiver.py
Line 83 in 876904d
This field comes from an FTS config file parameter, which may not be initialized the same way as rucio expects it to be. As a result, rucio will generate monitoring links which don't point to a correct fts fqdn.
Modification
Under normal operation, when we get a notification from FTS about a transfer completion, we know about the transfer and we retrieve it from the database. It doesn't cost us anything to use the request.external_host field from the database, which has the correct format.
We can ignore the ocurances when it's not the case. It means that we got a notification from FTS about a transfer submitted by rucio, but about which rucio doesn't know anything.... we would have bigger problems to investigate in such case than a wrong monitoring link :D
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: