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

Incorrect FTS transfer_link on messages sent by receiver #5640

Closed
rcarpa opened this issue Jun 13, 2022 · 0 comments
Closed

Incorrect FTS transfer_link on messages sent by receiver #5640

rcarpa opened this issue Jun 13, 2022 · 0 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@rcarpa
Copy link
Contributor

rcarpa commented Jun 13, 2022

Motivation

The transfer_link is generated here:

return '%s/fts3/ftsmon/#/job/%s' % (self.external_host.replace('8446', '8449'), self._transfer_id)

Which uses external_host as passed into the constructor:

external_host = msg.get('endpnt', None)

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

@rcarpa rcarpa self-assigned this Jun 13, 2022
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 bari12 closed this as completed in 06823ce Jul 2, 2022
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.
@bari12 bari12 added this to the 1.28.7 milestone Jul 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants