Check running job before create backup

[pengweisong]

What type of PR is this?

• bug
• feature
• enhancement

What problem(s) does this PR solve?

Issue(s) number:

#5012
#4975

Description:

How do you solve it?

1. add more job type to check
2. add some test

Special notes for your reviewer, ex. impact of this fix, design document, etc:

Checklist:

Tests:

• Unit test(positive and negative cases)
• Function test
• Performance test
• N/A

Affects:

• Documentation affected (Please add the label if documentation needs to be modified.)
• Incompatibility (If it breaks the compatibility, please describe it and add the label.）
• If it's needed to cherry-pick (If cherry-pick to some branches is required, please label the destination version(s).)
• Performance impacted: Consumes more CPU/Memory

Release notes:

Please confirm whether to be reflected in release notes and how to describe:

ex. Fixed the bug .....

[wenhaocs]

This PR is to prevent BR running when there are other jobs, which is definitely a must. But in the issue, it is the other way around: stop the Balance job running when there are backup jobs. Will it be solved somewhere else?

[panda-sheep]

Good job.
I have a question.
In the second step of CreateBackupProcessor::process, if a blocking_ lock is added to the part of the storage engine, writing is not allowed, but it will not block the execution of the job? Such as compact job

[yixinglu]

Good enhancement!

[pengweisong]

This PR is to prevent BR running when there are other jobs, which is definitely a must. But in the issue, it is the other way around: stop the Balance job running when there are backup jobs. Will it be solved somewhere else?

No, since BR use hard link instead of copy data, it will be very fast. But indeed, we could use the global lock to handle the corner case.

[pengweisong]

Good job. I have a question. In the second step of CreateBackupProcessor::process, if a blocking_ lock is added to the part of the storage engine, writing is not allowed, but it will not block the execution of the job? Such as compact job

Ineed, then we should:

1. check when we start backup, there is no these jobs.
2. in the backup process we should prevent relevant jobs starting to run.

For the 1, we already check. The latter is the same problem raised by wenhao. We may could use an lock on space.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 77.34% // Head: 77.96% // Increases project coverage by +0.61% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (4be1a5e) compared to base (70d0bb2).
Patch coverage: 62.96% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5013      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.34%   77.96%   +0.61%     
==========================================
  Files        1105     1108       +3     
  Lines       82146    82642     +496     
==========================================
+ Hits        63539    64430     +891     
+ Misses      18607    18212     -395     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/clients/meta/MetaClient.cpp	79.03% <0.00%> (+2.69%)	⬆️
src/common/graph/Response.h	48.99% <ø> (ø)
src/graph/validator/MaintainValidator.h	65.27% <ø> (+2.77%)	⬆️
src/meta/processors/job/JobManager.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/parser/MaintainSentences.h	90.86% <ø> (+3.47%)	⬆️
src/graph/validator/MaintainValidator.cpp	81.79% <53.33%> (+6.85%)	⬆️
...rc/meta/processors/admin/CreateBackupProcessor.cpp	53.08% <80.00%> (+2.77%)	⬆️
src/meta/processors/job/AdminJobProcessor.cpp	66.31% <100.00%> (+0.35%)	⬆️
src/meta/processors/job/JobManager.cpp	74.10% <100.00%> (+3.45%)	⬆️
src/meta/processors/index/FTIndexProcessor.cpp	37.86% <0.00%> (-44.78%)	⬇️
... and 98 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.