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

protect against stray snapshot-details without snapshot #70

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: 4.15
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DaanHoogland
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR makes sure no orphaned snapshot details are considered in the cleanup at startup job.
a real solution would be to implement some kind of cascading delete, but as the parent record is "only" marked as removed this would be a bit complicated as a quick fix and also not a clean solution either.

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Member Author

@rhtyd @sureshanaparti I would like to submit this for upstream 4.15, small fix but very hard to test. What do you think?

Pearl1594 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2021
Adds a custom volume storage migration form

This fixes #70

Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav <[email protected]>
@sureshanaparti
Copy link
Member

@DaanHoogland @rhtyd I was mentioning about this PR: apache#4130 (fixed for service ticket apache#2870).

@@ -1097,6 +1097,10 @@ public void doInTransactionWithoutResult(TransactionStatus status) {
final List<SnapshotDetailsVO> snapshotList = _snapshotDetailsDao.findDetails(AsyncJob.Constants.MS_ID, Long.toString(msid), false);
for (final SnapshotDetailsVO snapshotDetailsVO : snapshotList) {
SnapshotInfo snapshot = snapshotFactory.getSnapshot(snapshotDetailsVO.getResourceId(), DataStoreRole.Primary);
if (snapshot == null) {
_snapshotDetailsDao.remove(snapshotDetailsVO.getId());
continue;
Copy link
Member

@sureshanaparti sureshanaparti Apr 15, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DaanHoogland here the snapshot details is scanned for 'MS_ID' only, and the associated snapshot object (if exists) holding this detail is transitioned to failed/error state. So, I think it is safe to remove detail 'MS_ID' only (not sure if any other detail is being process elsewhere).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ignore my last comment. Above ^^ remove stmt is correct as the record is being removed by details record id, and it is safe.

@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ public SnapshotInfo getSnapshot(DataObject obj, DataStore store) {
@Override
public SnapshotInfo getSnapshot(long snapshotId, DataStoreRole role) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DaanHoogland make sure 'null' returned here is checked, wherever this method is called.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that at line 94/97 null is returned as well. It is called 20 times, not including tests. if the snapshot is null and an SnapshotInfo object is returned with a null snapshot field it will result in runtime exceptions if it is used. I agree that errors may occur in different placec, but not more errors will occur. I'll spend some time researching thos 20 callers.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

added two null checks. I think these are superfluent, but they wont hurt.

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.

2 participants