-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 725
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
*: reset config if the input is invalid #8632
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the rest LGTM
@@ -813,6 +813,60 @@ func (suite *schedulerTestSuite) checkSchedulerDiagnostic(cluster *pdTests.TestC | |||
checkSchedulerDescribeCommand("balance-leader-scheduler", "normal", "") | |||
} | |||
|
|||
func (suite *schedulerTestSuite) TestEvictLeaderScheduler() { | |||
// FIXME: API mode may have the problem |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will we fix it in another PR?
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8632 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 77.63% 77.65% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 474 474
Lines 62097 62105 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 48209 48228 +19
+ Misses 10340 10337 -3
+ Partials 3548 3540 -8
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
re.Contains(string(output), "Success!") | ||
output, err = tests.ExecuteCommand(cmd, []string{"-u", pdAddr, "scheduler", "remove", "evict-leader-scheduler"}...) | ||
re.NoError(err) | ||
re.Contains(string(output), "Success!") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we need to check
testutil.Eventually(re, func() bool { // wait for removed scheduler to be synced to scheduling server.
output := mustExec(re, cmd, []string{"-u", pdAddr, "scheduler", "config", "evict-leader-scheduler"}, nil)
return strings.Contains(output, "[404] scheduler not found")
})
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
seem not work
@@ -408,6 +415,7 @@ func (handler *evictLeaderHandler) updateConfig(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.R | |||
batchFloat, ok := input["batch"].(float64) | |||
if ok { | |||
if batchFloat < 1 || batchFloat > 10 { | |||
handler.config.removeStore(id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For invalid config parameters, It's better to validate it, do nothing, and return 4xx + error message to let the users know it, it's not classic and unsafe to reset memory content when meeting invalid inputs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a rollback operation since the memory state has been changed in line 407.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it, make sense
@@ -408,6 +415,7 @@ func (handler *evictLeaderHandler) updateConfig(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.R | |||
batchFloat, ok := input["batch"].(float64) | |||
if ok { | |||
if batchFloat < 1 || batchFloat > 10 { | |||
handler.config.removeStore(id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Do we allow the input to not contain the store id? If this, we can check
if !inputHasStoreID
in L405, and assume that all subsequent cases areinputHasStoreID
by default. - How about puting L407(pauseLeaderTransferIfStoreNotExist) behind all checks over? In this case, we don't need to
removeStore
for each case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Yes, we allow only changing batch size.
- range relies on
exist
, only batch can be moved, but no much difference I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about adding a defer after L411? For now, it is so easy to forget to removeStore
, like L445.
defer func () {
if err != nil {
....
}
}()
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: lhy1024, okJiang The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/retest |
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
close #8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
close #8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
close #8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
close #8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]>
close tikv#8619 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: Close #8619.
What is changed and how does it work?
Check List
Tests
Release note