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

RFS can now take the source snapshot #551

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 4, 2024

Conversation

chelma
Copy link
Member

@chelma chelma commented Apr 4, 2024

Description

  • Updated README with better instructions on how to set up and run, test
  • Added the ability for the RFS script to take the source snapshot from an existing cluster
  • Added a Dockerfile to use as a source cluster in local testing

Issues Resolved

Testing

  • Tested manually snapshotting w/ the new Dockerfile as a source against an AOS 2.11 Domain target in own AWS Account
  • Also manually confirmed that using a local directory or existing snapshot in S3 still works

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing
    • All tests pass, including unit test, integration test and doctest
  • New functionality has been documented
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

/*
* You have three options for providing the snapshot data
* 1. A local snapshot directory
* 2. A source host we'll take the snapshot from
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Another use case to potentially add in future, seems like would be to allow taking a local snapshot and using

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Potentially; I thought about that as a option and wasn't able to think of a situation where I'd need it for testing but if you have something in mind I'm all ears.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My mind was around setting up a docker compose for local testing that had a low barrier for entry using a local snapshot. I'm worried having to setup an S3 bucket might turn some users away from initial trying the tool.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Got it - yep, I could see that.

body.put("ignore_unavailable", true);
body.put("include_global_state", true);

// Register the repo; it's fine if it already exists
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This comment seems like it should be removed

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought it provided value, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. Will re-write.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seemed like it was saying this method would register the repo, but was pretty sure that happened in another method

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, whoops, sorry - you're completely correct. I'll change that locally and it will flow out the next time I commit some code.

Signed-off-by: Chris Helma <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.52%. Comparing base (22bee2a) to head (18d95dc).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #551      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     76.57%   76.52%   -0.05%     
+ Complexity     1408     1407       -1     
============================================
  Files           155      155              
  Lines          6033     6033              
  Branches        543      543              
============================================
- Hits           4620     4617       -3     
- Misses         1047     1049       +2     
- Partials        366      367       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 76.52% <ø> (-0.05%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@chelma chelma merged commit 605057c into opensearch-project:main Apr 4, 2024
6 of 7 checks passed
@chelma chelma deleted the MIGRATIONS-1621 branch May 10, 2024 15:28
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.

2 participants