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

Replication failure test #895

Open
roman-khimov opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Replication failure test #895

roman-khimov opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
blocked Can't be done because of something feature Completely new functionality I3 Minimal impact S4 Routine U2 Seriously planned

Comments

@roman-khimov
Copy link
Member

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I'm always frustrated when we don't have a test for put failure scenario.

Describe the solution you'd like

REP 1 CBF 4 (or REP 2, but that requires more objects), have nodes failing requests (@carpawell can tell how to do that), push some number (10?) of objects into the node (the probability of hitting the relay-only scenario is 3/4 for REP 1 CBF 4), check that put never succeeds (with 0.43.0 there will be cases where it does).

Additional context

nspcc-dev/neofs-node#3014
nspcc-dev/neofs-node#2948

@roman-khimov roman-khimov added U2 Seriously planned S4 Routine I3 Minimal impact feature Completely new functionality labels Nov 15, 2024
@carpawell
Copy link
Member

The test needs two sets of nodes: one that belongs to some container and one that does not (e.g. REP 1 CBF 1). Then there should be some locked object X that has been put and protected from deletion. Then try to delete X but send a request to a node that does not belong to a container, it will have to redirect the request without checking any lock status. In this case we think it will work OK (no error but the object will not be deleted obviously) with 0.43.0 version but will fail (correctly) with the current master.
My suggestion differs a little from the issue's, but I believe it is easier to implement.
If anything goes wrong with the provided scenario (it does not fail when it should or vice versa) tell me, I will recheck.

@roman-khimov roman-khimov added the blocked Can't be done because of something label Nov 28, 2024
@roman-khimov
Copy link
Member Author

Let's wait for nspcc-dev/neofs-node#952 here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blocked Can't be done because of something feature Completely new functionality I3 Minimal impact S4 Routine U2 Seriously planned
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants