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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

backup_pitr CI: validate rejoining replication stream #16807

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 23, 2024
Merged

backup_pitr CI: validate rejoining replication stream #16807

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 23, 2024

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach commented Sep 19, 2024 •
edited by mattlord
Loading

Description

This is an update to the suite of backup_pitr tests. In these tests we restore to a given position or a given timestamp.

As a reminder, the PITR restore sets the tablet type to DRAINED, and with no primary configuration.

This PR goes an extra mile, after the server restored from backup and validated, to also check that it is able to join the replication stream. Normally you do not need it to, but if it is able to, that's an extra confirmation that we've applied binlog events correctly.

Related Issue(s)

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

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team September 19, 2024 09:29
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Sep 19, 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 Sep 19, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach added Type: CI/Build Component: Backup and Restore 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 Sep 19, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Sep 19, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2024
Merged
5 tasks
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.52%. Comparing base (56c39b2) to head (7e77e86).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16807      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.53%   69.52%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1567     1567              
  Lines      202388   202401      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits       140723   140726       +3     
- Misses      61665    61675      +10

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

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team September 23, 2024 06:00
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit 4c12794 into vitessio:main Sep 23, 2024
109 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the backup-pitr-replication branch September 23, 2024 12:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps approved these changes

@mattlord mattlord mattlord approved these changes

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Backup and Restore Type: CI/Build
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v21.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@shlomi-noach @mattlord @rohit-nayak-ps