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

sync controller: don't delete API objects that are new/in-progress/etc. #705

Closed
skriss opened this issue Jul 26, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@skriss
Copy link
Contributor

skriss commented Jul 26, 2018

backups with .spec.phase of "", New, InProgress should be excluded from the deleteUnused func.

backups with .spec.phase of FailedValidation -- I think it makes sense to exclude them as well. This ensure we don't delete the API obj before a user can see why it failed validation. It will still be GC'ed according to its TTL. We could possibly look at GC'ing backups that failed validation more quickly, but I don't think it's important for now.

backups with .spec.phase of Failed - these should be in object storage (just metadata + logs) -- so the existing code won't delete them, unless the upload of metadata to object storage fails. I'm tempted to exclude these from deleteUnused as well, as it could cause confusion for the user if a backup fails, uploading metadata/logs fail, and then the backup API obj just disappears.

So I think the net result of this is deleteUnused should only process Completed backups.

@carlisia WDYT?

@nrb
Copy link
Contributor

nrb commented Jul 26, 2018

Is the v0.10.0 milestone soon enough? Is it ok to release v0.9.2 without the fix?

@skriss
Copy link
Contributor Author

skriss commented Jul 26, 2018

this is a fix to carlisia's PR that got merged yesterday

@ncdc
Copy link
Contributor

ncdc commented Jul 26, 2018

You'll create a release-0.9 branch based off of v0.9.1 and then get #704 on to it?

@skriss
Copy link
Contributor Author

skriss commented Jul 26, 2018

release-0.9 already exists (created it in order to do v0.9.1), and yes, will get just #704 onto it to release v0.9.2. Writing changelog up now.

@carlisia
Copy link
Contributor

@skriss this makes sense. I'll add a few test cases that are not BackupPhaseCompleted and add the condition to make them pass.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants