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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Make probeserver config optional for bucket notification processes in S3C #2587

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 6, 2024
Merged

Make probeserver config optional for bucket notification processes in S3C #2587

merged 5 commits into from
Nov 6, 2024

Conversation

Kerkesni
Copy link
Contributor

@Kerkesni Kerkesni commented Nov 6, 2024 •
edited
Loading

  • validate() doesn't seem to validate the config at all, replaced it with joi.attempt() that we use to validate the extension configs.
  • Moved the probeserver validation out of the probeserver startup function and into the joi config schema, as it can now be optional. undefined is now returned by the startup function when no probeserver config is provided. This case is already supported in the entrypoint files.
  • In S3C, bucket notification processes only contain configuration for the notification extension. We make the probeserver config optional in this case as it is not currently supported in federation.

Issue: BB-623

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Nov 6, 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.

@Kerkesni
properly validate config
ab33a08 
`validate()` doesn't seem to work at all,
replaced it with `joi.attempt()` that we
use to validate the extension configs.

Issue: BB-623
@Kerkesni
remove probeconfig validation from startProbeServer
a8c1fb2 
probeserver config validation should be done when
validation the config, as it can be optional in some
cases.

Issue: BB-623
@Kerkesni
make the probeserver config optional for the bucket notification proc…
d130b35 
…esses

In S3C, bucket notification processes only contain configuration for the
notification extension. We make the probeserver config optional in this case
as it is not currently supported in federation.

Issue: BB-623
@Kerkesni
test backbeat config validation
8465a7b 
Issue: BB-623
@scality scality deleted a comment from bert-e Nov 6, 2024
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Nov 6, 2024

Waiting for approval

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

  • the author

  • 2 peers

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 6, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70.40%. Comparing base (6694ca8) to head (bb69b62).
Report is 29 commits behind head on development/8.7.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...nsions/notification/NotificationConfigValidator.js 100.00% <ø> (+25.00%) ⬆️
lib/Config.js 72.64% <100.00%> (+7.69%) ⬆️
lib/config.joi.js 100.00% <ø> (ø)
lib/util/probe.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Components Coverage Δ
Bucket Notification 67.07% <ø> (+0.41%) ⬆️
Core Library 75.32% <100.00%> (+0.18%) ⬆️
Ingestion 69.24% <ø> (ø)
Lifecycle 76.20% <ø> (ø)
Oplog Populator 82.95% <ø> (ø)
Replication 57.79% <ø> (ø)
Bucket Scanner 85.60% <ø> (ø) 
@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/8.7    #2587      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            70.31%   70.40%   +0.09%     
===================================================
  Files                  194      194              
  Lines                12997    12996       -1     
===================================================
+ Hits                  9139     9150      +11     
+ Misses                3848     3836      -12     
  Partials                10       10
Flag Coverage Δ
api:retry 9.73% <75.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
api:routes 9.54% <75.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
bucket-scanner 85.60% <ø> (ø)
ingestion 12.46% <75.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
lib 7.52% <75.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
lifecycle 19.24% <75.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
notification 0.87% <0.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
replication 19.04% <75.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unit 46.69% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️

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

@Kerkesni
remove unsupported config param
bb69b62 
healthcheckServer was removed from the config
in BB-520

Issue: BB-623
@Kerkesni
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kerkesni commented Nov 6, 2024

/approve

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Nov 6, 2024

In the queue

The changeset has received all authorizations and has been added to the
relevant queue(s). The queue(s) will be merged in the target development
branch(es) as soon as builds have passed.

The changeset will be merged in:

  • ✔️ development/8.7

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.5
  • development/8.6

There is no action required on your side. You will be notified here once
the changeset has been merged. In the unlikely event that the changeset
fails permanently on the queue, a member of the admin team will
contact you to help resolve the matter.

IMPORTANT

Please do not attempt to modify this pull request.

  • Any commit you add on the source branch will trigger a new cycle after the
    current queue is merged.
  • Any commit you add on one of the integration branches will be lost.

If you need this pull request to be removed from the queue, please contact a
member of the admin team now.

The following options are set: approve

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Nov 6, 2024

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

  • ✔️ development/8.7

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.5
  • development/8.6

Please check the status of the associated issue BB-623.

Goodbye kerkesni.

@bert-e bert-e merged commit 2418cfc into development/8.7 Nov 6, 2024
9 checks passed
@bert-e bert-e deleted the improvement/BB-623 branch November 6, 2024 16:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@KillianG KillianG KillianG approved these changes

@francoisferrand francoisferrand francoisferrand approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@Kerkesni @bert-e @francoisferrand @KillianG