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

Long running repairs autofail prematurely #3883

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: cassandra-4.0
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bereng
Copy link
Contributor

@bereng bereng commented Feb 10, 2025

Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips if you're new here:

  • Ensure you have added or run the appropriate tests for your PR.
  • Be sure to keep the PR description updated to reflect all changes.
  • Write your PR title to summarize what this PR proposes.
  • If possible, provide a concise example to reproduce the issue for a faster review.
  • Read our contributor guidelines
  • If you're making a documentation change, see our guide to documentation contribution

Commit messages should follow the following format:

<One sentence description, usually Jira title or CHANGES.txt summary>

<Optional lengthier description (context on patch)>

patch by <Authors>; reviewed by <Reviewers> for CASSANDRA-#####

Co-authored-by: Name1 <email1>
Co-authored-by: Name2 <email2>

The Cassandra Jira

@bereng
Copy link
Contributor Author

bereng commented Feb 10, 2025

CI j11 and j8 with an unrelated failure.

@@ -1021,6 +1021,7 @@ public void handleStatusResponse(InetAddressAndPort from, StatusResponse respons
}
else
{
session.setLastUpdate();
logger.debug("Received StatusResponse for repair session {} with state {}, which is not actionable. Doing nothing.", sessionID, response.state);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We are technically not Doing nothing anymore right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think icwym. You're probably referring to the junit being named 'noop'? It depends a lot on how you parse that in your brain imo. I read it as it's noop in terms of the status of the repair, which doesn't change. You probably read it as a pure 100% noop whereas now we're updating a timestamp? Some other people read junits as a pseudo-doc of the expected behavior of what a noop status operation should do 🤷 I think we're good and we avoid adding an extra almost identical test.

Copy link
Contributor

@bbotella bbotella left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 (nb)

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