-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 302
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
Replicas registration: removing adler32 requirement in add_replica methods #3494 #3538
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 think in principle this is fine now, however, it would allow adding replicas without any checksum at all.
Currently the schema validation would allow that.
rucio/lib/rucio/api/replica.py
Line 202 in 6df1b03
It does call the schema validation there, but since it compares with
dids
whereadler32
is not mandatory (due to datasets/containers) we can end up also with files without checksums.@davidgcameron @mlassnig @cserf @dchristidis would be good to check this too. I am not sure if we want to allow that, I think there needs to be at least an option to require one, or the other, checksum.
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.
Can the requirement be specified via a community-specific policy or configuration? For ATLAS checksums should be enforced but I can imagine other cases where it should be optional, like registering files residing on a storage which doesn't support checksums, mutable files, or pseudo-files like say a dynamic web page. I think we should be flexible and not restrict the way rucio can be (ab)used by any community :)
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 think we should do that. There is a few possibilities, one of them would be to place it in the
schema
(Which can already be community specific). The difficulty with that is that we would have to change this quite a bit though, since for now you could not just make theadler32
field mandatory. (That part of the schema is validated for datasets/containers too, and would fail them, since they do not have checksums)Another option is to put this into rucio.cfg or config table. Something like
required_checksum
.I am a little bit more leaning to the
schema
direction, since this makes this work natively also for multi-vo mode, where different VOs might have different requirements.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 would like to add few cents.
I'm not sure, but can you confirm making one checksum mandatory might limit the functionalities of per-RSE checksum compatibility?
In that case enforcing adler32 will throw away compatibility with, e.g., legacy gridftp sites (the triggering reason for the per-RSE compatibility).
For this reason I'd tend to the solution which would check all the provided values and verify that there is at least one, more than having a given algorithm set up statically as VO o deployment setting.
If this is not the case, then the per VO setting seems to me the best one, while having to interact with the schema is in mi mind not (read never) ideal.
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 was not following this closely, but just to throw my few cents into the discussion.
There should be a way to express the following things:
I guess a combination of both approaches makes sense here. A schema validation for the global "decision", and then more specific attributes to express the more fine-grained selections.