-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
[Issue 8346][Admin API] Validate retention policy #8358
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
[Issue 8346][Admin API] Validate retention policy #8358
Conversation
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
2 similar comments
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
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. |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
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
30aa4c8 to
12a463a
Compare
codelipenghui
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this 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.
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
6 similar comments
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
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.
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.
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.