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

Support transitions in OOB #5728

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: development/9.0
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

francoisferrand
Copy link
Contributor

Transition in OOB really only requires that an extra x-amz-meta-scal-version-id metadata is added when restoring the object, to allow backbeat to map the new objet being ingested with the existing metadata object.
This also requires this field to be added to overhead field, so it is provided in the oplog if the object is removed (from "backend" side) while restored.

In addition, as it requires using both endpoint, this opens new risk: to ensure OOB is "in-sync", writes through the OOB will not have the same VersionID as the backend. This is acutally not really a new behavior, as it allows this case to be consistent with the state of metadata when the object is simply ingested.

Issue: CLDSRV-563

When writing to OOB bucket/location, use the versionId of the ingested
location (i.e. the dataStore versionId) as the versionId of the object,
like what is done by OOB/ingestion.

This is needed to ensure the object can consistently be accessed from
either Zenko or the data location, with the same versionId; and prevents
the creation of another revision of the
object (basically duplicating it) when the object is ingested.

Issue: CLDSRV-563
When restoring to OOB bucket, we cannot force the versionId of the object written to the
backend, and it is thus not match the versionId of the ingested object. Thus we add extra
user metadata to allow OOB to allow ingestion processor to "match" the (new) restored
object with the existing ingested object.

Issue: CLDSRV-563
This ensures the field is present on metadata DELETE requests, and thus
available for use by OOB.

Issue: CLDSRV-563
An oplog update is only required when the object is archived, instead of
when lifecycle is enabled: so fix the condition to avoid extra
associated load.

The update is also required when bucket notification is enabled on the
bucket, no change there.

Issue: CLDSRV-563
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Jan 10, 2025

Hello francoisferrand,

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.

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented Jan 20, 2025

Waiting for approval

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

  • the author

  • 2 peers

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.

3 participants