The slice returned from bucket.Get() is only valid during the tx
lifetime. Cloning it is not necessary everywhere, but better safe than
sorry.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <e.stratonikov@yadro.com>
Concurrent Apply can lead to child node applies before parent, so
undo/redo operations will perform. This leads to performance degradation
in case of tree with many sublevels.
Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Stepanov <d.stepanov@yadro.com>
Previous release was EACL-compatible.
Starting from now all EACL should've been migrated to APE chains.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <e.stratonikov@yadro.com>
* Update version within go.mod;
* Fix deprecated frostfs-api-go/v2 package and use frostfs-sdk-go/api
instead.
Signed-off-by: Airat Arifullin <a.arifullin@yadro.com>
Initially, this test was a check that only the container node can
assemble an EC object. But the implementation of this test was wrong.
Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Stepanov <d.stepanov@yadro.com>
Nodes from cache could be changed by traverser, if no objectID specified.
So it is required to return copy of cache's slice.
Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Stepanov <d.stepanov@yadro.com>
As EC put request may be processed only by container node, so sign requests
with current node private to not to perform APE checks.
Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Stepanov <d.stepanov@yadro.com>
`slices.SortFunc` doesn't use reflection and is a bit faster.
I have done some micro-benchmarks for `[]NodeInfo`:
```
$ benchstat -col "/func" out
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node/pkg/local_object_storage/pilorama
cpu: 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-1135G7 @ 2.40GHz
│ sort.Slice │ slices.SortFunc │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
Sort-8 2.130µ ± 2% 1.253µ ± 2% -41.20% (p=0.000 n=10)
```
Haven't included them, though, as they I don't see them being used a
lot.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <e.stratonikov@yadro.com>
When getting a role in the APE checker for the container services,
an error may be returned if network maps of the previous two epochs
don't have enough nodes to fulfil a container placement policy.
It's a logical error, so we should ignore it.
Signed-off-by: Aleksey Savchuk <a.savchuk@yadro.com>
* `SignRequestPrivateKey` field should be initialized either within
`newUntrustedTarget` or within `newTrustedTarget`. Otherwise, all
requests are signed by local node key that makes impossible to perform
patch on non-container node.
Signed-off-by: Airat Arifullin <a.arifullin@yadro.com>
Consider the following operations ordering:
1. Inhume(with tombstone A) --> add tombstone mark for an object
2. --> new epoch arives
3. --> GCMark is added for a tombstone A, because it is unavailable
4. Put(A) --> return error, because the object already has a GCMark
It is possible, and I have successfully reproduced it with a test on the
shard level. However, the error is related to the specific
_ordering_ of operations with engine. And triggering race-conditions like
this is only possible on a shard level currently, so no tests are
written.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <e.stratonikov@yadro.com>
