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

CORE-17154 - boot config for state manager #1242

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 21, 2023

Conversation

conalsmith-r3
Copy link
Contributor

@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 commented Sep 11, 2023

Introduces boot config keys for the state manager. Follows on from 1240.

Runtime-os change: corda/corda-runtime-os#4624

@corda-jenkins-ci02
Copy link
Contributor

corda-jenkins-ci02 bot commented Sep 11, 2023

Jenkins build for PR 1242 build 8

Build Successful:
Jar artifact version produced by this PR: 5.1.0.20-alpha-1695220538469

@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 force-pushed the conal/CORE-16318-stateManagerBoot branch from 523b70b to c4f9834 Compare September 12, 2023 10:20
@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 marked this pull request as ready for review September 14, 2023 12:36
@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 14, 2023 12:36
@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 force-pushed the conal/CORE-16318-stateManagerBoot branch from c4f9834 to 0afc44c Compare September 17, 2023 16:19
@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 changed the title CORE-16318 - boot config for state manager CORE-17154 - boot config for state manager Sep 18, 2023
@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 force-pushed the conal/CORE-16318-stateManagerBoot branch from 47e9f32 to 9bbcd02 Compare September 19, 2023 13:29
jujoramos
jujoramos previously approved these changes Sep 20, 2023
public static final String JDBC_DRIVER_DIRECTORY = DB_PROPERTIES + ".jdbc.directory";
public static final String JDBC_PERSISTENCE_UNIT_NAME = DB_PROPERTIES + ".jdbc.persistenceUnitName";
public static final String JDBC_POOL_MAX_SIZE = DB_PROPERTIES + ".pool.maxSize";
public static final String JDBC_POOL_MIN_SIZE = DB_PROPERTIES + ".pool.minSize";
public static final String JDBC_POOL_IDLE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS = DB_PROPERTIES + ".pool.idleTimeoutSeconds";
public static final String JDBC_POOL_MAX_LIFETIME_SECONDS = DB_PROPERTIES + ".pool.maxLifetimeSeconds";
public static final String JDBC_POOL_KEEP_ALIVE_TIME_SECONDS = DB_PROPERTIES + ".pool.keepAliveTimeSeconds";
public static final String JDBC_POOL_KEEP_ALIVE_TIME_SECONDS = DB_PROPERTIES + ".pool.keepaliveTimeSeconds";
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 noticed we've introduced slightly inconsistent naming for this property, I just want to keep it consistent

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've noticed the inconsistency, and I changed the name on purpose actually... the correct value is keepAliveTimeSeconds so we should keep that instead of the old (wrong) one in my opinion 🤷‍♂️

Copy link
Contributor Author

@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 Sep 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure we can actually change the others (crypto and rbac) at this stage, that's probably a breaking change? I'm assuming this values schema is considered part of our public API?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We probably can't without breaking backward compatibility, true, but why keep the wrong name in newly introduced API instead of using the correct one?.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's unfortunately spread around the codebase quite a bit, I'd prefer we named it proper camelcase but my gut tells me to keep it consistent. I will change it back since we can't really change the others, at least stateManager will be correct.

Copy link
Contributor

@jujoramos jujoramos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 merged commit 47bc6a2 into release/os/5.1 Sep 21, 2023
@conalsmith-r3 conalsmith-r3 deleted the conal/CORE-16318-stateManagerBoot branch September 21, 2023 10:22
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