Skip to content

Conversation

@lhotari
Copy link
Member

@lhotari lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

Fixes #8346

Motivation

See #8346, #8345

Modifications

Prevent setting invalid retention policy where either size or time limit is set to zero while the other limit has a non-zero value.
The reason for this is that setting either size or time limit to zero will effectively disable the retention policy.
It is confusing for the end-user if it's possible to set a value for the other limit while it's ignored when the other limit has
the value of zero. This might lead to the incorrect assumption that the value of 0 has the meaning that the limit isn't effective.
The validation will provide the Admin API end user a useful error message if the validation fails.

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

2 similar comments
@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@jiazhai jiazhai requested a review from codelipenghui October 23, 2020 12:57
@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

since master branch is broken atm, I cherry picked the commit from #8361 to fix the broken state of CI. That PR should be merged before this one.

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@sijie sijie added this to the 2.7.0 milestone Oct 23, 2020
@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 23, 2020

I'm running an experiment to see if reverting 647d3c2 fixes the grpc / protobuf compatibility issues.

Fixes apache#8346

- prevent setting invalid retention policy where either size or time
  limit is set to zero while the other limit has a non-zero value.
  - the reason for this is that setting either size or time limit to
    zero will effectively disable the retention policy.
    - it is confusing for the end-user if it's possible to set a value
      for the other limit while it's ignored when the other limit has
      the value of zero
@lhotari lhotari force-pushed the lh-validate-retention-policies branch from 30aa4c8 to 12a463a Compare October 23, 2020 19:50
@lhotari lhotari marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2020 20:17
@lhotari lhotari marked this pull request as draft October 23, 2020 20:42
Copy link
Contributor

@codelipenghui codelipenghui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

@codelipenghui
Copy link
Contributor

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari lhotari marked this pull request as ready for review October 24, 2020 18:30
@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 24, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

6 similar comments
@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 24, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 24, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 25, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 25, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 25, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Oct 25, 2020

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

@codelipenghui codelipenghui merged commit db5320d into apache:master Oct 26, 2020
@lhotari lhotari deleted the lh-validate-retention-policies branch October 26, 2020 16:54
huangdx0726 pushed a commit to huangdx0726/pulsar that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2020
Fixes apache#8346

### Motivation

See apache#8346, apache#8345

### Modifications

Prevent setting invalid retention policy where either size or time limit is set to zero while the other limit has a non-zero value.
The reason for this is that setting either size or time limit to zero will effectively disable the retention policy.
It is confusing for the end-user if it's possible to set a value for the other limit while it's ignored when the other limit has
the value of zero. This might lead to the incorrect assumption that the value of 0 has the meaning that the limit isn't effective.
The validation will provide the Admin API end user a useful error message if the validation fails.
flowchartsman pushed a commit to flowchartsman/pulsar that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2020
Fixes apache#8346

### Motivation

See apache#8346, apache#8345

### Modifications

Prevent setting invalid retention policy where either size or time limit is set to zero while the other limit has a non-zero value.
The reason for this is that setting either size or time limit to zero will effectively disable the retention policy.
It is confusing for the end-user if it's possible to set a value for the other limit while it's ignored when the other limit has
the value of zero. This might lead to the incorrect assumption that the value of 0 has the meaning that the limit isn't effective.
The validation will provide the Admin API end user a useful error message if the validation fails.
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.

[Admin API] Prevent setting an invalid Retention Policy

3 participants