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

Log and ignore the error in reading udfs in schema tracker #16630

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 22, 2024
Merged

Log and ignore the error in reading udfs in schema tracker #16630

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 22, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR fixes the issue described in #16629. We will now log the error that we receive while reading the udfs but allow the schema tracker to continue.

We use a throttled logger for logging the error message to ensure we don't flood the logs with this error. We have hard-coded the throttled logger to only log the statement once every minute.

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

@GuptaManan100
feat: log and ignore the error in reading udfs
36b02fa 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Aug 22, 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 Aug 22, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 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 Aug 22, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Aug 22, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 22, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.99%. Comparing base (538dd4c) to head (36b02fa).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16630      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.98%   68.99%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1562     1562              
  Lines      200690   200697       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits       138449   138480      +31     
+ Misses      62241    62217      -24

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

@systay systay merged commit feb845a into vitessio:main Aug 22, 2024
141 checks passed
@systay systay deleted the fix-schema-tracking branch August 22, 2024 11:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@systay systay systay approved these changes

@dbussink dbussink dbussink approved these changes

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Awaiting requested review from harshit-gangal harshit-gangal is a code owner

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach Awaiting requested review from shlomi-noach shlomi-noach is a code owner

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps Awaiting requested review from rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps is a code owner

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

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

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

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Schema Tracker Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v21.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Schema tracker fails if it doesn't have the permission to read udfs information
3 participants
@GuptaManan100 @dbussink @systay