deardeng opened a new pull request, #70320:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/70320
### Background
CREATE and ALTER STORAGE VAULT serialize HDFS connection properties into a
vault request for Meta Service. The BE uses the persisted HDFS configuration to
select the authentication method.
Problem Summary:
A Kerberos HDFS vault created or updated through SQL can fail when the BE
opens remote files. The FE validates the credential properties but drops the
authentication mode, so the BE defaults to simple authentication. Preserve the
authentication mode in the existing HDFS configuration entries.
### Details
- **Frequency:** SQL CREATE or ALTER of an HDFS storage vault with Kerberos
authentication.
- **Root cause:** The authentication property takes a validation-only branch
in the shared request serializer.
- **Why existing tests missed it:** Credential validation tests cover
invalid or missing credentials. The HDFS pipeline preconfigures its Kerberos
vault directly through Meta Service.
- **Fix:** Serialize the authentication key and value in the lowercase form
recognized by the BE, after the existing credential checks.
- **Other paths and branches:** Both CREATE and ALTER use the same
serializer. Existing affected vaults need an ALTER after upgrade to persist the
missing property.
### Testing
- On the development host, the new FE unit test reproduced the missing
property before the fix.
- After the fix, the HdfsStorageVaultTest suite passed with 10 passes and
one environment-dependent connectivity test skipped.
- FE Core Checkstyle reported zero violations.
### Release note
Doris now preserves the Kerberos authentication mode when an HDFS storage
vault is created or altered through SQL. Alter affected existing vaults after
upgrading to persist their Kerberos settings.
### Check List (For Author)
- Behavior changed: Yes (see Details)
- Does this need documentation: No
- Pre-submission status: Partially verified: live Kerberos HDFS I/O was not
exercised.
### AI Disclosure
- Tool: OpenAI Codex (GPT-6).
- Generated: The fix, unit test, and commit message.
- Human review: Pending.
### Background
<!-- How the feature or module this PR touches works today, in two to four
plain sentences, for a reviewer who doesn't know it. Link the user doc if there
is one. Leave the problem and the fix to Problem Summary. -->
### What problem does this PR solve?
<!-- Issue Number: "close #N" if this PR resolves the issue, "#N" if it only
relates to it, "None" if there is none. A Feature needs an issue. -->
<!-- Related PR: "#N (relation)" for each PR a reviewer should know about,
such as "#123 (introduced the bug)", separated by commas. Write "None" if no
related PR is known. -->
<!-- PR Type: Bugfix, Performance, Feature, Enhancement, Refactor, Test,
Build/CI/Chore, Revert, Release/Dependency, or Other. -->
Issue Number:
Related PR:
PR Type:
Problem Summary:
<!-- Two to five sentences: the problem or need and who is affected; the
approach in one sentence; when the diff is larger than that suggests, what else
it had to handle, or that most of it is tests; and what existing users see
after an upgrade. -->
### Details
<!--
For a diff of more than about 300 changed lines, start with "- **Change
map:**": how many lines are production code, tests, generated files, and docs,
then the code in parts, each with the problem it handles and its size.
Then answer each field of your PR type on its own line, as "- **Field:**
answer", in this order:
Bugfix: Frequency, Root cause, Why existing tests missed it, Fix, Other
paths and branches
Performance: Why it was slow, Optimization, Results, Applicability and cost
Feature: Scope, Design, Usage, Default behavior, Compatibility
Enhancement: Before and after, Configs and defaults, Impact on existing
users
Refactor: Moves vs. logic changes, Behavior change, Compatibility,
Performance impact, Rollback
Test, adding tests: Scenarios, What existing tests miss, Fails when broken
Test, fixing a test: Failure, Cause, Stability evidence
Build/CI/Chore: Affected, Developer and release impact, License and
third-party, Rollback
Revert: Why not fix forward, Original author notified, Follow-up
Release/Dependency: Versions, Upstream changes, Compatibility, Rollback
Other: Why Other
"None" is a valid answer when it is true. Don't restate the diff.
-->
### Testing
<!-- The tests, suites, or commands that ran, what each shows, and where it
ran (locally or in CI). For a fix, the test that fails before it and passes
after. -->
### Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Optional; delete this section if there is nothing to say. Why each
non-obvious edit was made, what you are unsure about, and where to start
reading if Details has no Change map. -->
### Release note
<!-- One paragraph on what users will notice, or None. -->
### Check List (For Author)
<!-- Behavior changed: "No", or "Yes (see Details)" with a Behavior change
field in Details. -->
<!-- Does this need documentation: "No", or "Yes" with the
apache/doris-website PR or the plan. -->
<!-- Pre-submission status: "Ready"; "Partially verified: " and what is not
verified; or "Not ready: " and why, for a Draft PR. -->
- Behavior changed:
- Does this need documentation:
- Pre-submission status:
### AI Disclosure
<!-- Tool: the agent and model, or None. Generated: the parts it wrote
(code, tests, this description), or None. Human review: what you reviewed of
the generated parts, or "Not applicable" without AI tools. You may add "-
Prompts:" to summarize how you directed the agent. -->
- Tool:
- Generated:
- Human review:
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
