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

fix ambiguous redis connection config #2543

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Kerkesni
Copy link
Contributor

Redis sentinel is what's deployed in S3C, to connect to it we use "sentinels" field in redis config that contains the host/port of each sentinel.

In Artesca we use the "host" and "port" fields to connect to the redis instance.

The config rules were adapted to make sure we don't pass all the fields at once which might make the config ambiguous to understand, although the redis client seems to handle this case well, as it first checks the sentinel config before connecting using the host/port fields.

Default values for redis host/port were removed from the config definition and put inside the default/dev config file.

Issue: BB-522

Redis sentinel is what's deployed in S3C, to connect to it
we use "sentinels" field in redis config that contains the host/port
of each sentinel.

In Artesca we use the "host" and "port" fields to connect to the redis
instance.

The config rules were adapted to make sure we don't pass all the fields at once
which might make the config ambiguous to understand, although the redis client
seems to handle this case well, as it first checks the sentinel config before connecting
using the host/port fields.

Default values for redis host/port were removed from the config definition and put inside
the default/dev config file.

Issue: BB-522
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Sep 24, 2024

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.

@scality scality deleted a comment from bert-e Sep 24, 2024
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Sep 24, 2024

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 24, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.33%. Comparing base (a1e9895) to head (d20c311).
Report is 1 commits behind head on development/8.6.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/config.joi.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
Components Coverage Δ
Bucket Notification 66.66% <ø> (ø)
Core Library 74.00% <ø> (ø)
Ingestion 68.70% <ø> (ø)
Lifecycle 74.86% <ø> (ø)
Oplog Populator 82.95% <ø> (ø)
Replication 57.42% <ø> (ø)
Bucket Scanner 85.76% <ø> (ø)
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           development/8.6    #2543   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            69.33%   69.33%           
================================================
  Files                  194      194           
  Lines                12791    12791           
================================================
  Hits                  8869     8869           
  Misses                3912     3912           
  Partials                10       10           
Flag Coverage Δ
api:retry 9.66% <ø> (ø)
api:routes 9.56% <ø> (ø)
bucket-scanner 85.76% <ø> (ø)
ingestion 12.47% <ø> (ø)
lib 7.55% <ø> (ø)
lifecycle 19.39% <ø> (ø)
notification 0.88% <ø> (ø)
replication 18.97% <ø> (ø)
unit 42.94% <ø> (ø)

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

@Kerkesni
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kerkesni commented Oct 2, 2024

/approve

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 2, 2024

Integration data created

I have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.

  • this pull request will merge improvement/BB-522 into
    development/8.6
  • w/8.7/improvement/BB-522 will be merged into development/8.7

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.5

You can set option create_pull_requests if you need me to create
integration pull requests in addition to integration branches, with:

@bert-e create_pull_requests

The following options are set: approve

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 2, 2024

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

  • ✔️ development/8.6

  • ✔️ development/8.7

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.5

Please check the status of the associated issue BB-522.

Goodbye kerkesni.

The following options are set: approve

@bert-e bert-e merged commit d20c311 into development/8.6 Oct 2, 2024
13 checks passed
@bert-e bert-e deleted the improvement/BB-522 branch October 2, 2024 14:26
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.

5 participants