Add Crr Cascade capabilities to backbeat crr replication#2747
Conversation
Hello sylvainsenechal,My role is to assist you with the merge of this Available options
Available commands
Status report is not available. |
![claude[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1236702?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can functional tests instead of just these,
But waiting for Arsenal/cloudserver to be merged, as it will be easier to make these tests (functional tests in backbeat rely on an image of cloudserver)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
keeping unit test is good, functional test should just be an addition?
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files
... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## development/9.5 #2747 +/- ##
===================================================
+ Coverage 75.40% 75.50% +0.09%
===================================================
Files 201 201
Lines 13868 13898 +30
===================================================
+ Hits 10457 10493 +36
+ Misses 3401 3395 -6
Partials 10 10
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
4c64ed6 to
3237f9e
Compare
38d87c8 to
29d498b
Compare
| if (err instanceof MicroVersionIdAlreadyStoredException || | ||
| err instanceof StaleMicroVersionIdException) { | ||
| return cbOnce(err); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need the condition here? Can't we just log the error (like all other errors) and pass it up in these case as well?
(the main difference is that we would get a ERROR log instead of INFO... and log here instead of in the continuation callback)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think its nicer to keep, these arent unexpected errors, and they are logged already in the replication outcome.
I moved them with the if (err.ObjNotFound) above though, as its a similar situation : expected error
| entry: destEntry.getLogInfo(), | ||
| error: destMvIdRaw.message, | ||
| }); | ||
| return doneOnce(destMvIdRaw); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should still be a collision : even if we can't parse the microVersionID, we are still in the case "data already at destination", so we shoud still try to write the metadata anyway ?
(the only difference is that we can't really make the optimization of skipping the metadata updated if the microVersionId is already up to date on target)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I updated the code, this will be a situation where we still do a putMetadata.
I also moved the decoding to another place, more centralized
| // Another replicant already stored the object data | ||
| // Compare microVersionIds to decide what to do with metadata: | ||
| // - source is newer : proceed in metadata-only mode | ||
| // - same or older : skip putMetadata | ||
| const destMvId = collisionResult.destMvIdRaw; | ||
| const srcMvId = sourceEntry.getMicroVersionId() || null; | ||
| const isLoop = srcMvId === destMvId; | ||
| const isStale = destMvId !== null && | ||
| (srcMvId === null || srcMvId > destMvId); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is where compareMicroVersionId shines, please use the arsenal function:
- it makes the intent explicit (just comparing micro version id)
- the function should handle the corner cases itself ("null" micro version id...)
- we don't actually need to differentiate loop vs stale here
It would look something like this, i.e. we skip if we receive the destination micro version id (field present and no parse error) AND the micro version id is newer or equal at destination
const skipPutMetadata = destMvId !== undefined && compareMicroVersoinId(sourceEntry.getMicroVersionId(), destMvId) <= 0;
return cb(null, [], true, skipPutMetadata);
| if (err instanceof VersionIdCollisionException) { | ||
| const destMvIdRaw = err.microVersionId | ||
| ? decodeMicroVersionId(err.microVersionId) : null; | ||
| if (destMvIdRaw instanceof Error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I wonder if it is best to do the decoding here, or just pass the field "verbatim" in the part and let _getAndPutData() decode
- it would avoid useless decoding of every parts' microVersionId
- it would increase locally (
- but the code here still needs to make sure if forwards both the microVersionId "value" AND the information that the field was indeed provided
| // update location, replication status and put metadata in | ||
| // target bucket | ||
| (destLocations, next) => { | ||
| (destLocations, noNewDataLocations, skipMetadata, next) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these 2 parameters are not independent, there are actually only 3 cases:
- no conflict (i.e. as before)
- conflict with metadata already up to date
- conflict but we have newer metadata which need to be replicated
not sure how best to handle this, maybe an object ("conflict") with the microVersionId : so we also improve locality by performing the microVersionId comparison (optimization) here?
→ undefined in the usual case (no conflict), don't even need the false like line 972
→ { microVersionId: ... } (possibly with the "conflict" field you already have) otherwise ; skip if compareMicroVersionId() <= 0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I updated it with a conflict object and move some logic around into a helper function as we still need it in 2 different places
| destEntry.setLocation(location); | ||
| this._putMetadata(destEntry, false, log, next); | ||
| (destLocations, noNewDataLocations, skipMetadata, next) => { | ||
| if (skipMetadata) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this block is duplicated and not trivial (it handles putData conflict resolution) : should be written just once... does it makes sense do do this in _putMetadata, by adding it another parameter for putData conflict ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm gonna refactor this but I prefer extracting a helper functoin that putting it in putMetadata.
It looks very weird to call a function with an object that's used at the top of the function so that the function itself decides whether it should conitnue or not
| const replicationContent = (mdOnly ? 'METADATA' : undefined); | ||
| // Send x-scal-replication-content so cloudserver know the putMetadata api | ||
| // is used in the context of a replication | ||
| const replicationContent = (mdOnly ? 'METADATA' : 'DATA,METADATA'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is required as otherwise, in non mdOnly situation, there is no replicationContent header, and cloudserver has no way no know we are calling putMetadata in the context of a replication.
Anyways i think sending data, metadata for non mdOnly should've been added earlier.
e214df0 to
b4a44d3
Compare
| // holds this revision or a newer one. Returns false when there is no conflict, | ||
| // when the destination microVersionId is absent or can't be parsed (proceed | ||
| // conservatively), or when the source holds a newer revision. | ||
| _shouldSkipMetadata(sourceMicroVersionId, conflict, log) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Discuss : Could be moved into putMetada so that we don't have to call this from 2 places, and instead inline it.
But imo it's a weird pattern to add an extra param to a function, then call that function and use that extra param at the top to decide to potentially not run this function
There was a problem hiding this comment.
either are fine with me.
- while I agree on the param (especially the
skip(bool skip)anti-pattern), in this case it seems fine to me : the parameter is not just an indication to skip, but really an input allowing to make the decision ("details of the conflict"). - in my mind, putting it is
putMetadatamakes it a further from the anti-pattern : to me it is not skipping the metadata write, but just raising the abstraction level. PutMetadata's goal is to ensure the metadata is in the system, and it would gain the ability to reach the goal without actually making a write (kind of magic!) - similar in a way to how a getter could either read from the actual DB or quickly return the data from a cache.
(but either way may be better to keep _shouldSkipMetadata separate -just decide if it is called from within _putMetadata or before it- so each path can be demonstrated and tested easily)
b4a44d3 to
8580536
Compare
|
The code is getting smaller after each review 😆 |
| } | ||
| } | ||
| const comparison = compareMicroVersionId(sourceMicroVersionId, destMvId); | ||
| return destMvId !== null && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
May completely remove the null check if I end up update the compareMicroVersionId function.
Still reviewing cloudserver, haven't done it/decided yet
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| if (result.isCollision) { | ||
| collisionResult = collisionResult || result; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit:
| collisionResult = collisionResult || result; | |
| collisionResult ||= result; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually i dont think its supoprted currently :
Run yarn run --silent lint
/home/runner/work/backbeat/backbeat/extensions/replication/tasks/ReplicateObject.js
471:39 error Parsing error: Unexpected token =
| // holds this revision or a newer one. Returns false when there is no conflict, | ||
| // when the destination microVersionId is absent or can't be parsed (proceed | ||
| // conservatively), or when the source holds a newer revision. | ||
| _shouldSkipMetadata(sourceMicroVersionId, conflict, log) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
either are fine with me.
- while I agree on the param (especially the
skip(bool skip)anti-pattern), in this case it seems fine to me : the parameter is not just an indication to skip, but really an input allowing to make the decision ("details of the conflict"). - in my mind, putting it is
putMetadatamakes it a further from the anti-pattern : to me it is not skipping the metadata write, but just raising the abstraction level. PutMetadata's goal is to ensure the metadata is in the system, and it would gain the ability to reach the goal without actually making a write (kind of magic!) - similar in a way to how a getter could either read from the actual DB or quickly return the data from a cache.
(but either way may be better to keep _shouldSkipMetadata separate -just decide if it is called from within _putMetadata or before it- so each path can be demonstrated and tested easily)
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should add tests to verify _shouldSkipMetadata behavior directly in the different cases
- no conflict
- conflict with "invalid" microVersionId
- conflict with missing microVersionId
- conflict with newer/equal/older microVersionId
- conflict with null microVersionId (either in conflict or in destination)
Waiting for approvalThe following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:
|
maeldonn
left a comment
maeldonn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some minor issues to fix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please avoid callbacks on new isolated functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok I'm gonna do this in a separate pr where i will remove all callbacks from this file, ticket already opened and some work done on it
benzekrimaha
left a comment
benzekrimaha
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing more to add after mael and françois's comments. Approving
8580536 to
cd74329
Compare
08697b0 to
dc8766f
Compare
dc8766f to
8c10723
Compare
Issue: BB-767
|
/approve |
|
I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
The following branches have NOT changed:
This pull request did not target the following hotfix branch(es) so they
Please check the status of the associated issue BB-767. Goodbye sylvainsenechal. The following options are set: approve |
5 participants
Issue: BB-767
Related PRs :
Arsenal : scality/Arsenal#2628
Cloudserver : scality/cloudserver#6179
CloudserverClient : scality/cloudserverclient#24
S3utils : scality/s3utils#395