[BugFix] Fix BlobStorage use different broker in a client request bug #48856
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: HangyuanLiu <[email protected]>
![starrocks-cr[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/404334?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -770,7 +785,7 @@ public Status checkPathExist(String remotePath) { | |||
|
|
|||
| TBrokerCheckPathExistResponse rep = ThriftRPCRequestExecutor.callNoRetry( | |||
| ThriftConnectionPool.brokerPool, | |||
| getBrokerAddress(), | |||
| address, | |||
| client -> client.checkPathExist(req)); | |||
|
|
|||
| TBrokerOperationStatus opst = rep.getOpStatus(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The most risky bug in this code is:
Inconsistent broker address variable name in the checkPathExist method.
You can modify the code like this:
@@ -762,7 +776,7 @@ public Status checkPathExist(String remotePath) {
if (!hasBroker) {
return checkPathExistWithoutBroker(remotePath);
}
+ TNetworkAddress brokerAddress = getBrokerAddress();
// check path
try {
@@ -770,7 +785,7 @@ public Status checkPathExist(String remotePath) {
TBrokerCheckPathExistResponse rep = ThriftRPCRequestExecutor.callNoRetry(
ThriftConnectionPool.brokerPool,
- getBrokerAddress(), // Incorrect variable name here
+ brokerAddress, // Consistent with the rest of the code
client -> client.checkPathExist(req));
TBrokerOperationStatus opst = rep.getOpStatus();
|
[FE Incremental Coverage Report]❌ fail : 2 / 12 (16.67%) file detail
|
[BE Incremental Coverage Report]✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%) |
wyb
approved these changes
Jul 25, 2024
gengjun-git
approved these changes
Jul 25, 2024
|
@Mergifyio backport branch-3.3 |
✅ Backports have been created
|
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
…#48856) Signed-off-by: HangyuanLiu <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 72e4bf5)
Merged
42 tasks
wanpengfei-git
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2024
… (backport #48856) (#48936) Co-authored-by: Harbor Liu <[email protected]>
dujijun007
pushed a commit
to dujijun007/starrocks
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2024
…StarRocks#48856) Signed-off-by: HangyuanLiu <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why I'm doing:
PR #48292 introduced a bug. If there is no corresponding broker locally, getBroker will return an available broker at random. However, we must ensure that multiple requests for one operation are sent to the same broker.
What I'm doing:
Fixes #issue
What type of PR is this:
Does this PR entail a change in behavior?
If yes, please specify the type of change:
Checklist:
Bugfix cherry-pick branch check: