Skip to content

do not allow using crr location as a locationConstraint #5806

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 24, 2025

Conversation

Kerkesni
Copy link
Contributor

  • Support the 'CRR' type for locations
  • Do not allow setting the CRR location as a locationConstraint

Issue: CLDSRV-653

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented May 22, 2025

Hello kerkesni,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented May 22, 2025

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-653 contains:

  • None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

  • 9.0.12

  • 9.1.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-653, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@Kerkesni Kerkesni force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch from 171a8ec to f209c2a Compare May 22, 2025 08:29
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 22, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.88%. Comparing base (d1a2731) to head (53c4494).
Report is 4 commits behind head on development/9.1.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/Config.js 78.78% <ø> (ø)
lib/api/bucketPut.js 94.17% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/api/objectCopy.js 77.92% <100.00%> (+0.86%) ⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.1    #5806      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            75.83%   75.88%   +0.05%     
===================================================
  Files                  188      188              
  Lines                11970    11970              
===================================================
+ Hits                  9078     9084       +6     
+ Misses                2892     2886       -6     
Flag Coverage Δ
ceph-backend-test 45.43% <50.00%> (ø)
file-ft-tests 47.32% <50.00%> (ø)
kmip-ft-tests 26.96% <50.00%> (ø)
mongo-v0-ft-tests 47.76% <50.00%> (ø)
mongo-v1-ft-tests 47.77% <50.00%> (ø)
multiple-backend 33.98% <50.00%> (ø)
sur-tests 35.46% <50.00%> (ø)
sur-tests-inflights 36.57% <50.00%> (ø)
unit 66.84% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
utapi-v2-tests 33.32% <50.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@Kerkesni Kerkesni changed the base branch from development/9.0 to development/9.1 May 23, 2025 08:20
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented May 23, 2025

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-653 contains:

  • None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

  • 9.1.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-653, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented May 26, 2025

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

@Kerkesni Kerkesni force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch 5 times, most recently from 23f798b to 1bf8301 Compare June 6, 2025 16:15
lib/Config.js Outdated
Comment on lines 388 to 390
if (locationConstraints[l].type === 'crr') {
assert(locationConstraints[l].isCrr === true);
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we always have the "type" crr and expect isCRR to be true, why not just relying on the type to detect if this is a CRR location instead?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the point is actually the opposite: there may be multiple "types" of locations which support CRR (i.e. must be set in backbeat replication endpoint) but cannot be used for writing directly. So the flag isCrr was introduced to give this flexibility; and type may be used if we have different kinds of crr locations.

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Jun 13, 2025

Conflict

There is a conflict between your branch improvement/CLDSRV-653 and the
destination branch development/9.1.

Please resolve the conflict on the feature branch (improvement/CLDSRV-653).

git fetch && \
git checkout origin/improvement/CLDSRV-653 && \
git merge origin/development/9.1

Resolve merge conflicts and commit

git push origin HEAD:improvement/CLDSRV-653

@Kerkesni Kerkesni force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch from 1bf8301 to 8003aa0 Compare June 20, 2025 08:56
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Jun 20, 2025

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

@Kerkesni Kerkesni force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch from 172108f to d1c7b5b Compare June 20, 2025 10:31
@Kerkesni Kerkesni force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch from d1c7b5b to bad4440 Compare June 23, 2025 10:08
@Kerkesni Kerkesni requested a review from williamlardier June 24, 2025 07:54
@Kerkesni Kerkesni force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch from 69cfaf5 to 53c4494 Compare June 24, 2025 10:02
@Kerkesni
Copy link
Contributor Author

/approve

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Jun 24, 2025

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

  • ✔️ development/9.1

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-653.

Goodbye kerkesni.

The following options are set: approve

@bert-e bert-e merged commit 53c4494 into development/9.1 Jun 24, 2025
25 checks passed
@bert-e bert-e deleted the improvement/CLDSRV-653 branch June 24, 2025 10:17
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.

4 participants