NC | lifecycle | continue last run #8925
Conversation
nadavMiz
force-pushed
the
lifecycle-continue-argument
branch
from
4fd3474 to
f735ef9
Compare
nadavMiz
force-pushed
the
lifecycle-continue-argument
branch
3 times, most recently
from
1d8f8da to
d04893f
Compare
| for (const [bucket_name, prev_bucket_status] of Object.entries(previous_run.buckets_statuses)) { | ||
| if (!buckets.includes(bucket_name)) continue; | ||
| const bucket_json = await config_fs.get_bucket_by_name(bucket_name, config_fs_options); | ||
| if (!bucket_json.lifecycle_configuration_rules) continue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why bucket json and lifecycle_configuration_rules check is needed? AFAIU you can just copy and nullify/undefindify ( :) ) the stats and times of each bucket/rule
I believe we care about the general structure of buckets and rules and state
There was a problem hiding this comment.
buckets and rules can change between runs. since we save this in the log file. we will have empty object for rule/ bucket with irrelevant state. there may still be concurrency issue. but I think we should at least check it between runs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes we can nullify the state if it doesn't exist. I can change it work like that
| //ignore error | ||
| } | ||
| await exec_manage_cli(TYPES.LIFECYCLE, '', {continue: 'true', disable_service_validation: 'true', disable_runtime_validation: 'true', config_root}, undefined, undefined); | ||
| const object_list2 = await object_sdk.list_objects({bucket: test_bucket}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
where is the assert that the run didn't do anything?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is not the test that the run didn't do anything. its a test that it did finish the job. might be a redundant test. but I though it might find general bugs with continue flow. I can test that the lifecycle finished successfully. the test that test that it didn't is the previous one
nadavMiz
force-pushed
the
lifecycle-continue-argument
branch
from
d04893f to
d59c586
Compare
Signed-off-by: nadav mizrahi <[email protected]>
nadavMiz
force-pushed
the
lifecycle-continue-argument
branch
from
d59c586 to
73edf4c
Compare
Describe the Problem
lifecycle run might fail or timeout before all the objects were processed. add a flag to continue the ran from where it last stopped
Explain the Changes
Issues: Fixed #xxx / Gap #xxx
Testing Instructions:
automatic tests:
sudo npx jest test_nc_lifecycle_climanual test: