fix: db transaction inconsistencies when deleting keys #1139
Conversation
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
Test Results 50 files 50 suites 1m 39s ⏱️ Results for commit bf9e1eb. |
korthout
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2024
Comment on lines
-111
to
+112
| return transactionCache.containsKey(keyBytes) || database.containsKey(keyBytes); | ||
| return !deletedKeys.contains(keyBytes) | ||
| && (transactionCache.containsKey(keyBytes) || database.containsKey(keyBytes)); |
Comment on lines
+76
to
+78
| if (deletedKeys.contains(key)) { | ||
| return null; | ||
| } |
|
@megglos There is already a |
|
bors merge |
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
1139: fix: db transaction inconsistencies when deleting keys r=megglos a=megglos ## Description The main cause of #1001 was the bug fixed via 77e162c . Within the same transaction you couldn't insert a previously deleted key, this happened as after processing the first processes complete command a new message start event correlation was triggered, failing as the previous active process instance was still in the database as the transaction wasn't commited and deleted keys of the transaction weren't checked. I also noticed there was a bug in the `get` by key method, not checking the deletedKeys set either and fixed that too with bf9e1eb . I verified the fix as well with the test case provided in the original issue, I decided against adding it though as the unit test covers the behavior of the db transaction that was the cause of the message start event test case failing. ## Related issues <!-- Which issues are closed by this PR or are related --> closes #1001 Co-authored-by: Meggle (Sebastian Bathke) <sebastian.bathke@camunda.com>
|
Build failed: |
|
bors retry flake |
|
Build succeeded: |
ghost
merged commit 
|
Successfully created backport PR for |
|
Successfully created backport PR for |
|
Successfully created backport PR for |
This was referenced Apr 3, 2024
|
Successfully created backport PR for |
|
Successfully created backport PR for |
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
The main cause of #1001 was the bug fixed via 77e162c . Within the same transaction you couldn't insert a previously deleted key, this happened as after processing the first processes complete command a new message start event correlation was triggered, failing as the previous active process instance was still in the database as the transaction wasn't commited and deleted keys of the transaction weren't checked.
I also noticed there was a bug in the
getby key method, not checking the deletedKeys set either and fixed that too with bf9e1eb .I verified the fix as well with the test case provided in the original issue, I decided against adding it though as the unit test covers the behavior of the db transaction that was the cause of the message start event test case failing.
Related issues
closes #1001