Fix issue with never-ending install retries #1192
Conversation
|
I think we might need to move (Updated to fix typo) |
To keep all the logic at the same place Signed-off-by: Laurent Bonnans <[email protected]>
As backend sends empty director targets in some unexpected situations, we've implemented a client-side mitigation in 02deeb5. One unwanted side-effect is that after a failed installation, we'll keep taking into account the targets containing the new version, hence retrying installations in a loop until the backend asks to install something new. Second fix is to drop director targets after installation end, until we've come to an agreement on a proper solution on both sides. Signed-off-by: Laurent Bonnans <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Bonnans <[email protected]>
lbonn
force-pushed
the
fix/OTA-2587/fix-failed-retries
branch
from
6d6a98e to
489b405
Compare
|
Added a test for the fix. Since it works, I would vote for keeping the simple solution if it doesn't have major drawback, as it's easier to reason about and less likely (IMO) to break in the future. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1192 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 77.09% 77.1% +<.01%
=========================================
Files 173 173
Lines 10116 10127 +11
=========================================
+ Hits 7799 7808 +9
- Misses 2317 2319 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems legit. Shall we merge and then have @EpicNuts verify that he is happy with the results?
As backend sends empty director targets in some unexpected situations,
we've implemented a client-side mitigation in
02deeb5.
One unwanted side-effect is that after a failed installation, we'll keep
taking into account the targets containing the new version, hence
retrying installations in a loop until the backend asks to install
something new.
Second fix is to drop director targets after installation end, until
we've come to an agreement on a proper solution on both sides.
Note: would probably need an accompanying unit test, on the way :)