TrueCloudLab/frostfs-api
32
0
Fork 18
Code Issues 14 Pull requests 1 Releases Activity Actions

Extend PatchRequest.Body with new_split_header field #81

Merged
fyrchik merged 1 commit from aarifullin/frostfs-api:fix/patch_split into master 2025-03-26 12:29:21 +00:00
Conversation 0 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +4
aarifullin commented 2025-03-04 16:54:03 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  • This field updates object's split header.

FYI: we can't generate docs with edition=2023 directive

* This field updates object's split header. FYI: [we can't](https://github.com/pseudomuto/protoc-gen-doc/issues/541) generate docs with `edition=2023` directive
aarifullin added 1 commit 2025-03-04 16:54:03 +00:00
[#xx] object: Extend PatchRequest.Body with new_split_header field
Some checks failed
Formatters / Run fmt (pull_request) Successful in 24s
Details
DCO action / DCO (pull_request) Failing after 26s
Details
Pre-commit hooks / Pre-commit (pull_request) Successful in 32s
Details
3a34a886f0 
* This field updates object's split header.

Signed-off-by: Airat Arifullin <aarifullin@yadro.com>
requested reviews from fyrchik, a.bogatyrev, alexvanin, realloc, storage-sdk-developers 2025-03-04 16:54:03 +00:00
aarifullin force-pushed fix/patch_split from 3a34a886f0 to d0f583220b 2025-03-04 16:54:37 +00:00 Compare
dkirillov reviewed 2025-03-05 06:20:58 +00:00
object/service.proto Outdated
@ -889,1 +889,4 @@
// New split header for the object. This defines how the object will relate
// to other objects in a split operation.
neo.fs.v2.object.Header.Split new_split_header = 5;
dkirillov commented 2025-03-05 06:20:57 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Do we decided add only split header, not any other system attributes?

Do we decided add only split header, not any other system attributes?
aarifullin commented 2025-03-05 08:24:40 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

True, but I have changed my mind:

  1. I don't think these fields should become changeable for an object. Currently, we're trying to create a workaround to make an object related to other objects in frostfs. If we let a client patch attributes like ContainerID and OwnerID, then the result will be unpredictable (or it'll be a huge disaster)
  2. After our discussion I found that patching split_header is enough and no other system attribute is required to get patched. Initially my concern was to take into account all necessary fields
True, but I have changed my mind: 1. I don't think [these fields](https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-api/src/branch/master/object/types.proto#L80-L110) should become changeable for an object. Currently, we're trying to create a workaround to make an object related to other objects in frostfs. If we let a client patch attributes like `ContainerID` and `OwnerID`, then the result will be unpredictable (or it'll be a huge disaster) 2. After our discussion I found that patching `split_header` is enough and no other system attribute is required to get patched. Initially my concern was to take into account all necessary fields
fyrchik commented 2025-03-05 08:31:44 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I don't think these fields should become changeable for an object.

The same thing was being said about splitheader some time ago :)

>I don't think these fields should become changeable for an object. The same thing was being said about splitheader some time ago :)
😆 1
fyrchik commented 2025-03-05 08:33:19 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I don't mind adding this field explicitly, but we need to be sure that it is enough for the usecase we are trying to support.

I don't mind adding this field explicitly, but we need to be sure that it is enough for the usecase we are trying to support.
dkirillov marked this conversation as resolved
aarifullin was assigned by dkirillov 2025-03-05 06:21:11 +00:00
fyrchik approved these changes 2025-03-12 08:13:36 +00:00
Dismissed
orikik approved these changes 2025-03-12 09:09:24 +00:00
Dismissed
dkirillov approved these changes 2025-03-17 08:58:12 +00:00
Dismissed
acid-ant approved these changes 2025-03-17 11:37:07 +00:00
Dismissed
elebedeva approved these changes 2025-03-17 11:46:44 +00:00
Dismissed
orikik scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2025-03-26 10:09:54 +00:00
removed review requests for realloc, a.bogatyrev, alexvanin 2025-03-26 10:11:47 +00:00
aarifullin force-pushed fix/patch_split from d0f583220b to 9c7730b67b 2025-03-26 12:20:01 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin dismissed fyrchik's review 2025-03-26 12:20:01 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

aarifullin dismissed orikik's review 2025-03-26 12:20:02 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

aarifullin dismissed dkirillov's review 2025-03-26 12:20:02 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

aarifullin dismissed acid-ant's review 2025-03-26 12:20:02 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

aarifullin dismissed elebedeva's review 2025-03-26 12:20:02 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

PavelGrossSpb approved these changes 2025-03-26 12:21:33 +00:00
fyrchik merged commit 9c7730b67b into master 2025-03-26 12:29:21 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
PavelGrossSpb
Labels
Clear labels   
P0

Highest

  
P1

High

  
P2

Medium

  
P3

Low

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
triage

Needs to be triaged

  
Infrastructure

Infrastructure, Automation, CI/CD or DevOps related stuff

  
blocked

The issue or PR is blocked by something

  
bug

Something is not working

  
config

Configuration format update or breaking change

  
discussion

Talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

  
documentation

Documentation related

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature

  
go

Language features adoption

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
internal

   
invalid

Something is wrong

  
kludge

This is a kludge and we know it

  
observability

Related to metrics, tracing and logs

  
perfomance

Perfomance related

  
question

More information is needed

  
refactoring

Refactoring

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No labels
P0
P1
P2
P3
good first issue
triage
Infrastructure
blocked
bug
config
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
go
help wanted
internal
invalid
kludge
observability
perfomance
question
refactoring
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
aarifullin
7 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-api#81
No description provided.
Delete branch "aarifullin/frostfs-api:fix/patch_split"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?