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

fix: Avoid creation of workflows with non-empty tables in target keyspace #16874

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Oct 18, 2024

Conversation

beingnoble03
Copy link
Member

@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 commented Oct 2, 2024

Description

This PR adds a validation check for empty tables in the target keyspace while creating workflows, in deploySchema(). Addresses all the comments in #16826.

Related Issue(s)

Screenshots

Screenshot 2024-10-04 at 2 20 52 PM

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 2, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Oct 2, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Oct 2, 2024
@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 force-pushed the workflow-duplicate-tables branch from 45e3cba to 305bfd7 Compare October 2, 2024 15:25
@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: VReplication and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Oct 2, 2024
@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 force-pushed the workflow-duplicate-tables branch from 305bfd7 to 1f30481 Compare October 4, 2024 08:30
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.36%. Comparing base (7eaf236) to head (492406e).
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtctl/workflow/materializer.go 83.33% 7 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16874      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.34%   69.36%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1571     1571              
  Lines      204179   204221      +42     
==========================================
+ Hits       141586   141668      +82     
+ Misses      62593    62553      -40     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 marked this pull request as ready for review October 4, 2024 08:58
Copy link
Contributor

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good! Can you address the comments and also update the description with more detail on how you have implemented the PR.

@@ -480,8 +480,8 @@ func (tmc *fakeTMClient) VReplicationExec(ctx context.Context, tablet *topodatap
}
for qry, res := range tmc.vreQueries[int(tablet.Alias.Uid)] {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did you need to make this change from regexp.MustCompile(qry) to regexp.MustCompile(qry[1:]) ?
It is not correct afaik: this is supposed to allow regexp queries, so the / at the beginning should be required.

Your second fix for matching query instead of qry is a good catch.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need to remove the / at the beginning, for regexp in go, we don't need that for regexp matching. This was probably a mistake. We already have similar logic in our codebase: e.g. https://github.com/vitessio/vitess/blob/main/go/vt/vtctl/workflow/framework_test.go#L450-L463

go/vt/vtctl/workflow/utils.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@vitess-bot vitess-bot modified the milestones: v21.0.0, v22.0.0 Oct 8, 2024
// containing a list of non-empty tables.
func validateEmptyTables(ctx context.Context, ts *topo.Server, tmc tmclient.TabletManagerClient, shards []*topo.ShardInfo, tableSettings []*vtctldatapb.TableMaterializeSettings) error {
var mu sync.Mutex
isTableFaulty := map[string]bool{}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Change terminology from "Faulty" to "NonEmpty" like hasTableData or isNonEmpty. Similarly faultyTables => nonEmptyTables or tablesWithData ...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

Copy link
Contributor

@mattlord mattlord left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is great, @beingnoble03 ! I only had minor nits and suggestions, can you huddle up with @rohit-nayak-ps and decide what changes you'd like to make from my comments? They are not correctness issues so I will leave it to the two of you to decide.

This is the only one that I really think we should probably do: #16874 (comment)

Thanks! ❤️

@@ -290,6 +290,15 @@ func (mz *materializer) deploySchema() error {
}
}

// Check if any table being moved is already non-empty in the target keyspace.
// Skip this check for multi-tenant migrations.
if !mz.IsMultiTenantMigration() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A nice future addition would be to check for any existing tenant data in each table on the target too.

// Check if any table being moved is already non-empty in the target keyspace.
// Skip this check for multi-tenant migrations.
if !mz.IsMultiTenantMigration() {
err := validateEmptyTables(mz.ctx, mz.ts, mz.tmc, mz.targetShards, mz.ms.TableSettings)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're passing in a lot of mz members, which tells me it's probably better to have mz as the method receiver, no?

mz.validateEmptyTables()

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought about this too, but went with the other approach anyway. Refactored the function with the receiver, it looks much cleaner now!
Also, if the method receiver is materializer, it makes sense to have validateEmptyTables in materializer.go. So, moved it from utils.go.

go/vt/vtctl/workflow/utils.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go/vt/vtctl/workflow/materializer.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go/vt/vtctl/workflow/utils.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go/vt/vtctl/workflow/utils.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
eg, groupCtx := errgroup.WithContext(ctx)
eg.SetLimit(20)

for _, ts := range tableSettings {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It might be worth adding the shard and table to the errors in this loop as there could be 1,000 shards and you would want to know what specific shard had a table with data in it, and e.g. what shard and table we encountered an error in processing.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we do this in a follow-up PR?

go/vt/vtctl/workflow/utils.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: VReplication Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants