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

behn: propagate errors in deferred moves #6447

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 11, 2023
Merged

Conversation

joemfb
Copy link
Member

@joemfb joemfb commented Apr 4, 2023

... and handle them correctly in the only remaining %drip-sites in %clay.

This has been tested and validated in various upgrade scenarios between local fake ships. It was motivated by a case of .^ in +on-load rendering a ship effectively inoperable (behn: queue blocked).

Copy link
Contributor

@philipcmonk philipcmonk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't realize those were the last callsites, that's good to see. These changes are good.

@belisarius222 belisarius222 merged commit 365a1d5 into develop Apr 11, 2023
1 check passed
@belisarius222 belisarius222 deleted the jb/drip-hurl branch April 11, 2023 15:28
@philipcmonk
Copy link
Contributor

Leaving a note for posterity:

I believe this caused an issue with a ship that had something in its set of drips when the upgrade went through (since drips happen during the upgrade process, this isn't that surprising). Other ships may have had that situation, but drips don't usually fail. This one did because the drip was to install an old clay revision that didn't have a sys.kelvin. This caused the queue to block.

@joemfb
Copy link
Member Author

joemfb commented Jul 24, 2023

I never thought to migrate outstanding %drip's along with this change. Did you find a workaround, or do you think it's worth writing and deploying a migration to better support upgrading old ships? (That would just transform the ducts of any outstanding %drip's from %clay.)

@philipcmonk
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think it's worth it unless we find another reason why it would deterministically fail. The sys.kelvin trigger only really might happen if you're upgrading from before October 2021, and that's not many.

In our case, breaching the ship is not a big deal, so we're doing that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants