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

Online DDL: Fail a --in-order-completion migration, if a _prior_ migration within the same context is 'failed' or 'cancelled' #16071

Merged

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Fixes #16070

Either at scheduling time, or when running, for a given --in-order-completion migration, if we find another migration in the same migration-context that is failed or cancelled, and that other migration precedes our given migration chronologically (has a lower id value in schema_migrations table), then we fail our given migration.

Basically the idea is: if 5 migrations are meant to run in-order, and 3rd migration happens to fail, then 4th and 5th migrations should fail as well and should not be allowed to complete. If they were allowed to complete, they'd run out of order.

Related Issue(s)

#16070

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

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
…ly bail out when one migration fails. This last test will fail and a followup commit will implement the code

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
…n' query picks a failed or cancelled migration with a given migration context, and which comes before a given migration

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
… the same context is 'failed' or 'cancelled'. Failing happens either at 'ready' state or at 'running' state

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach added Type: Bug Component: Online DDL Online DDL (vitess/native/gh-ost/pt-osc) labels Jun 5, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team June 5, 2024 18:11
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jun 5, 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 Jun 5, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Jun 5, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach 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 Jun 5, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 5, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 60 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.20%. Comparing base (6def783) to head (c429499).

Files Patch % Lines
go/vt/vttablet/onlineddl/executor.go 0.00% 60 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16071      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.20%   68.20%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1541     1541              
  Lines      197332   197369      +37     
==========================================
+ Hits       134598   134619      +21     
- Misses      62734    62750      +16     

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

t.Run("drop multiple tables and views, in-order-completion", func(t *testing.T) {
uuidList := testOnlineDDLStatement(t, createParams(sql, ddlStrategy+" --in-order-completion", "vtctl", "", "", true)) // skip wait
vuuids = strings.Split(uuidList, "\n")
assert.Equal(t, 4, len(vuuids))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you didn't already know, you can use assert.Len too/instead.

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 did not know!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
Comment on lines +3462 to +3472
// We will fail an in-order migration if there's _prior_ migrations within the same migration-context
// which have failed.
if onlineDDL.StrategySetting().IsInOrderCompletion() {
wasFailed, err := e.validateInOrderMigration(ctx, onlineDDL)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
if wasFailed {
continue
}
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Most of this function is just an extract/refactor out of runNextMigration() and into an independent function of its own. But these lines above are then also added to fail a migration before even running it, if the in-order terms are not met.

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team June 6, 2024 08:43
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit b81c617 into vitessio:main Jun 6, 2024
95 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the onlineddl-in-order-execution branch June 6, 2024 11:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Online DDL Online DDL (vitess/native/gh-ost/pt-osc) Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
3 participants