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

Refactor writable warm feature flag to include tiering #13719

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 23, 2024

Conversation

neetikasinghal
Copy link
Contributor

@neetikasinghal neetikasinghal commented May 16, 2024

Description

Refactor the writable remote index feature flag to include the tiering functionality as well. Considered the following options:

  1. TIERED_REMOTE_INDEX
  2. TIERED_WRITEABLE_INDEX
  3. TIERED_WRITEABLE_REMOTE_INDEX (Preferred)
  4. TIERED_WRITEABLE_WARM_INDEX
  5. TIERING_EXPERIMENTAL

Related Issues

Resolves #13718

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing.
    • All tests pass
  • New functionality has been documented.
    • New functionality has javadoc added
  • API changes companion pull request created.
  • Failing checks are inspected and point to the corresponding known issue(s) (See: Troubleshooting Failing Builds)
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff
  • [] Commit changes are listed out in CHANGELOG.md file (See: Changelog)
  • [] Public documentation issue/PR created

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.

Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for c5a775e: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for 6e9632c: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

@neetikasinghal
Copy link
Contributor Author

❌ Gradle check result for 6e9632c: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

#13473

Signed-off-by: Neetika Singhal <neetiks@amazon.com>
Copy link
Contributor

❌ Gradle check result for 756e26a: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

@neetikasinghal
Copy link
Contributor Author

❌ Gradle check result for 756e26a: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

#12197
#13600

@sohami
Copy link
Collaborator

sohami commented May 23, 2024

❌ Gradle check result for 756e26a: FAILURE
Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

#12197 #13600

Created tracking issue for other variants of failure as well: #13792

Copy link
Contributor

❕ Gradle check result for 756e26a: UNSTABLE

Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.52%. Comparing base (b15cb0c) to head (756e26a).
Report is 301 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13719      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     71.42%   71.52%   +0.10%     
- Complexity    59978    61221    +1243     
============================================
  Files          4985     5062      +77     
  Lines        282275   287907    +5632     
  Branches      40946    41692     +746     
============================================
+ Hits         201603   205928    +4325     
- Misses        63999    64990     +991     
- Partials      16673    16989     +316     

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

@sohami
Copy link
Collaborator

sohami commented May 23, 2024

❕ Gradle check result for 756e26a: UNSTABLE

Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure.

Created tracking issue for new flaky test: #13797. Other one is known: #13307

@sohami sohami merged commit da0cf84 into opensearch-project:main May 23, 2024
30 checks passed
@sohami sohami added the backport 2.x Backport to 2.x branch label May 23, 2024
@opensearch-trigger-bot
Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Navigate to the root of your repository
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-13719-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 da0cf847a3639b45efc34b211854284ecf00ef8d
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-13719-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-13719-to-2.x.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Release v2.18 (10/22/24)
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Refactor the writable warm index feature flag
2 participants