Skip to content

Conversation

@ashking94
Copy link
Member

Description

As part of #15333, read context in RemoteStoreRefreshListener is changed from DEFAULT to READONCE. This led to failures with java.lang.WrongThreadException: Attempted access outside owning thread during segments upload to remote store esp with s3-repository plugin.
Remote store integ tests use FsRepository but as the implementation changes for repository-s3, ideally we need to integ tests that talk directly to s3. We will take this up as a follow-up task.

In this PR, we are adding the main RemoteStoreIT is being run with local FS and S3 as well.

Check List

  • Functionality includes testing.
  • [ ] API changes companion pull request created, if applicable.
  • [ ] Public documentation issue/PR created, if applicable.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for a50b2f8: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for 44994aa: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for 1ea0a59: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

Signed-off-by: Ashish Singh <ssashish@amazon.com>
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for 0dfb787: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for 0dfb787: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

✅ Gradle check result for 0dfb787: SUCCESS

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 12, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.37%. Comparing base (ffa46ca) to head (0dfb787).
Report is 38 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...index/translog/RemoteFsTimestampAwareTranslog.java 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #17578      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     72.43%   72.37%   -0.07%     
+ Complexity    65721    65664      -57     
============================================
  Files          5311     5311              
  Lines        304941   304937       -4     
  Branches      44228    44226       -2     
============================================
- Hits         220890   220686     -204     
- Misses        65952    66125     +173     
- Partials      18099    18126      +27     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ashking94
Copy link
Member Author

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.37%. Comparing base (ffa46ca) to head (0dfb787).
Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...index/translog/RemoteFsTimestampAwareTranslog.java 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

The change is to make log level from warn to debug due to it's noisy nature. The codecov does not represent the change truly.

@ashking94 ashking94 merged commit 1275017 into opensearch-project:main Mar 13, 2025
32 of 35 checks passed
vinaykpud pushed a commit to vinaykpud/OpenSearch that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2025
…ect#17578)

Signed-off-by: Ashish Singh <ssashish@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Vinay Krishna Pudyodu <vinkrish.neo@gmail.com>
@ashking94 ashking94 added the backport 2.x Backport to 2.x branch label Mar 21, 2025
@opensearch-trigger-bot
Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Navigate to the root of your repository
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-17578-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 127501789334d6deb19d206bf76d8475a9e27c54
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-17578-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-17578-to-2.x.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants