Skip to content

Handle 404 from Scuba backend#5968

Merged
bert-e merged 2 commits into
development/9.1from
bugfix/CLDSRV-758
Oct 24, 2025
Merged

Handle 404 from Scuba backend#5968
bert-e merged 2 commits into
development/9.1from
bugfix/CLDSRV-758

Conversation

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ghost ghost commented Oct 13, 2025

For Veeam reoutes, this will set 0 as the metric. The value is correct: if scuba returns a 404 error, it means there is no metric for the resource.

Issue: CLDSRV-758

For Veeam reoutes, this will set 0 as the metric. The value is
correct: if scuba returns a 404 error, it means there is no
metric for the resource.

Issue: CLDSRV-758
@bert-e
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 13, 2025

Hello williamlardier,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 13, 2025

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-758 contains:

  • 9.0.31

  • 9.1.5

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

  • 9.1.5

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-758, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Oct 13, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.00%. Comparing base (a8d5672) to head (3f8ed81).
⚠️ Report is 35 commits behind head on development/9.1.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/routes/veeam/get.js 97.29% <100.00%> (+9.79%) ⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.1    #5968      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            83.72%   84.00%   +0.27%     
===================================================
  Files                  191      191              
  Lines                12233    12238       +5     
===================================================
+ Hits                 10242    10280      +38     
+ Misses                1991     1958      -33     
Flag Coverage Δ
ceph-backend-test 64.56% <0.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
file-ft-tests 66.90% <0.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
kmip-ft-tests 27.18% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
mongo-v0-ft-tests 68.23% <0.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
mongo-v1-ft-tests 68.22% <0.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
multiple-backend 34.23% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
sur-tests 34.77% <0.00%> (-0.87%) ⬇️
sur-tests-inflights 36.70% <0.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
unit 69.32% <100.00%> (+0.99%) ⬆️
utapi-v2-tests 33.56% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@ghost ghost marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2025 08:15
Comment thread tests/sur/routeVeeam.js
it('GET capacity.xml should return 200 when scubaclient returns 404 (post-install scenario)', done => {
// This test simulates the post-install scenario where scubaclient returns 404
// because no metrics are available yet. By not calling scuba.incrementBytesForBucket,
// the mock scuba server will return 404 for this bucket.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we do something to make sure it's the case ? My point is that if someone change the mock server, this test will continue to pass 🤷

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Already tracked by this ticket: https://scality.atlassian.net/browse/CLDSRV-528
A bit too early to add scuba yet, we need to drop count items first

Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js
Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js Outdated
getVeeamFile(request, response, bucketMd, log);

setImmediate(() => {
// For 500 errors, we should return error to client
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// For 500 errors, we should return error to client

You already mention that in the it

Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit/routes/veeam-routes.js Outdated
Comment thread tests/sur/routeVeeam.js
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@SylvainSenechal SylvainSenechal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nothing much to add from Edouard's review, I still very much prefer functional tests over mocks, and I find mocks hard to read, but it's better than nothing

Nits : some variables could be replaced by constants in veeam-route.js : 'test-bucket', 'getBucket'.
I also prefer to not use default parameter for the object key in createRequest, but not very important

@ghost ghost force-pushed the bugfix/CLDSRV-758 branch from 1012aab to 3f8ed81 Compare October 23, 2025 09:25
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

ghost commented Oct 23, 2025

/approve

@ghost ghost deleted a comment from bert-e Oct 23, 2025
@bert-e
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 23, 2025

In the queue

The changeset has received all authorizations and has been added to the
relevant queue(s). The queue(s) will be merged in the target development
branch(es) as soon as builds have passed.

The changeset will be merged in:

  • ✔️ development/9.1

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0

There is no action required on your side. You will be notified here once
the changeset has been merged. In the unlikely event that the changeset
fails permanently on the queue, a member of the admin team will
contact you to help resolve the matter.

IMPORTANT

Please do not attempt to modify this pull request.

  • Any commit you add on the source branch will trigger a new cycle after the
    current queue is merged.
  • Any commit you add on one of the integration branches will be lost.

If you need this pull request to be removed from the queue, please contact a
member of the admin team now.

The following options are set: approve

@bert-e
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 23, 2025

Queue build failed

The corresponding build for the queue failed:

  • Checkout the status page.
  • Identify the failing build and review the logs.
  • If no issue is found, re-run the build.
  • If an issue is identified, checkout the steps below to remove
    the pull request from the queue for further analysis and maybe rebase/merge.
Remove the pull request from the queue
  • Add a /wait comment on this pull request.
  • Click on login on the status page.
  • Go into the manage page.
  • Find the option called Rebuild the queue and click on it.
    Bert-E will loop again on all pull requests to put the valid ones
    in the queue again, while skipping the one with the /wait comment.
  • Wait for the new queue to merge, then merge/rebase your pull request
    with the latest changes to then work on a proper fix.
  • Once the issue is fixed, delete the /wait comment and
    follow the usual process to merge the pull request.

@bert-e
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

bert-e commented Oct 24, 2025

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

  • ✔️ development/9.1

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-758.

Goodbye williamlardier.

@bert-e bert-e merged commit a1321cf into development/9.1 Oct 24, 2025
74 of 76 checks passed
@bert-e bert-e deleted the bugfix/CLDSRV-758 branch October 24, 2025 10:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants