Allow counters to be created with same name, provider and source as a deleted one #10223
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 4.19 #10223 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 15.16% 15.16%
- Complexity 11296 11299 +3
=========================================
Files 5408 5408
Lines 473891 473895 +4
Branches 57838 57838
=========================================
+ Hits 71846 71851 +5
Misses 394013 394013
+ Partials 8032 8031 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@Pearl1594 a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 12137 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@rohityadavcloud a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
| ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`counter` DROP KEY `uc_counter__provider__source__value`; | ||
| CALL `cloud`.`IDEMPOTENT_ADD_UNIQUE_KEY`('cloud.counter', 'uc_counter__provider__source__value_removed', '(provider, source, value, removed)'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how will we deal with this in upgrade paths that bypass this one?
I mean can we add an if-exists construct and copy it to future upgrades?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would this be bypassed? Wouldn't we have a schema file for 4.19.2 -> 4.20? And since you brought it up, since this involves a DB change - should this go into the next major release?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand correctly, what Daan meant is the upgrade from a version which does not have this change , for example 4.20.0.0 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah.. got it.. I completely forgot 🤦
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-12142)
|
| @@ -22,5 +22,20 @@ | |||
| -- Add last_id to the volumes table | |||
| CALL `cloud`.`IDEMPOTENT_ADD_COLUMN`('cloud.volumes', 'last_id', 'bigint(20) unsigned DEFAULT NULL'); | |||
|
|
|||
| ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`counter` DROP KEY `uc_counter__provider__source__value`; | |||
| CALL `cloud`.`IDEMPOTENT_ADD_UNIQUE_KEY`('cloud.counter', 'uc_counter__provider__source__value_removed', '(provider, source, value, removed)'); | |||
| SELECT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Pearl1594
maybe we can add a procedure similar as
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good call @weizhouapache that will help with a lot of these parallel upgrade issues.
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
engine/schema/src/main/resources/META-INF/db/schema-41910to41920.sql
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Description
This PR fixes: #10043
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?