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

Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check #14656

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2023
Merged

Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check #14656

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2023

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR fixes the bug described in #14655. We were just missing a nil check and that has been added. This PR also adds a test to verify we don't see the panic anymore.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@GuptaManan100
test: add failing test
fc6ca50 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
@GuptaManan100
feat: fix panic
03b211e 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 1, 2023

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 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 Dec 1, 2023
@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 labels Dec 1, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Dec 1, 2023
ajm188
ajm188 approved these changes Dec 1, 2023
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtctl/grpcvtctldserver/server_test.go
@@ -7580,7 +7579,71 @@ func TestPlannedReparentShard(t *testing.T) {
Nanos: 1,
},
},
shouldErr: true,
expectedErr: "duration: seconds:-1 nanos:1 is out of range for time.Duration",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this might be a bit unstable, how about expectedError error and then asserting errors.Is(err, test.expectedErr)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do you think this would be unstable? require.EqualError takes in a string as a second argument. I thought it was meant to be used this way?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

right, but we ever change the exact wording of the error message, this test will break. versus if we just assert on the type of error being returned, it is more stable

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh I understand now! We want to assert on the type of error. I explored this possibility today, but unfortunately that won't work for this case. Because we are returning the error as fmt.Errorf("duration: %v is out of range for time.Duration", dpb) it doesn't have a specific type that we can assert on. Plus I want to ensure we error out with the correct message and not with a different message that doesn't make sense.
I think for now this is fine and if we change the error message, then we should also change the expectations of the test.

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 merged commit 6820742 into vitessio:main Dec 5, 2023
120 of 121 checks passed
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 deleted the fix-panic-prs branch December 5, 2023 06:25
vitess-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
@vitess-bot
Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (#14656)
f8b3470 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2023
Merged
vitess-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
@vitess-bot
Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (#14656)
0d78a29 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
This was referenced Dec 5, 2023
Merged
Merged
vitess-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
@vitess-bot
Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (#14656)
d5b973a 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
GuptaManan100 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
@vitess-bot
[release-18.0] Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (#14656) (#…
3e40419 
…14676)

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
GuptaManan100 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
@vitess-bot @GuptaManan100
[release-16.0] Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (#14656) (#…
ed8502e 
…14674)

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
GuptaManan100 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
@vitess-bot @GuptaManan100
[release-17.0] Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (#14656) (#…
faee1cf 
…14675)

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
ejortegau pushed a commit to slackhq/vitess that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2023
@GuptaManan100 @ejortegau
Fix Panic in PRS due to a missing nil check (vitessio#14656)
5af5ad6 
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
@ajm188 ajm188 mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ajm188 ajm188 ajm188 approved these changes

@frouioui frouioui frouioui approved these changes

@mattlord mattlord mattlord approved these changes

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

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Cluster management Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v19.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Panic in calling PRS from vtctld
4 participants
@GuptaManan100 @mattlord @ajm188 @frouioui