The problem seems to be related to line 308 at com.cloud.tags.TaggedResourceManagerImpl.deleteTags(List<String>, ResourceObjectType, Map<String, String>). It is being sent a list of resourceUUID as the filter for resourceId
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > The resourceId is not a real DB ID. It is the UUID converted to Long :(.... > This table has four "ID" like fields, ID, UUID, resourceID, and > resourceUUID. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev < > kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> wrote: > >> Hi, I just enabled log all queries and copied actual query which I have >> shown in the first mail. Also, I don't understand why the search should >> look over inner ids... Is it a case when user can pass real db ids to an >> api call? >> >> 22 нояб. 2017 г. 6:55 ПП пользователь "Rafael Weingärtner" < >> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> написал: >> >> > Yes, this I understood ;) >> > >> > However, I do not understand how the SQL that is being generated has >> this >> > clause: " resource_tags.resource_id='2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465- >> > c1bc5440ea60'". >> > The resourceId field in the entity is a long. So, even though that long >> > represents a String, in the final SQL that is generated it should be a >> long >> > value there. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev < >> > kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Take a look here: >> > > >> > > SELECT resource_tags.id, resource_tags.uuid, resource_tags.key, >> > > resource_tags.value, resource_tags.domain_id, >> resource_tags.account_id, >> > > resource_tags.resource_id, resource_tags.resource_uuid, >> > > resource_tags.resource_type, resource_tags.customer FROM resource_tags >> > > WHERE ( resource_tags.resource_id='2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465- >> > c1bc5440ea60' >> > > OR resource_tags.resource_uuid=_binary'2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f- >> > > 9465-c1bc5440ea60' >> > > ) AND resource_tags.resource_type = 'Account'; >> > > >> > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > | id | uuid | key | value | >> domain_id | >> > > account_id | resource_id | resource_uuid | >> > > resource_type | customer | >> > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > | 7 | 95a1a314-2247-4622-a33f-b9b2680bc2e1 | test | me | >> 1 >> > | >> > > 2 | 2 | 3199fc71-cf39-11e7-af5d-dc0ea16ecd7f | >> Account >> > > | NULL | >> > > | 10 | 6c247aa1-5524-4910-9b5f-c6cfd9b3bdd9 | test3 | me | >> 1 >> > | >> > > 4 | 4 | 2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60 | >> Account >> > > | NULL | >> > > | 12 | 25fb7848-af34-42f7-855e-0f5909a4e979 | test5 | me2 | >> 1 >> > | >> > > 4 | 4 | 2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60 | >> Account >> > > | NULL | >> > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > 3 rows in set, 1 warning (0.01 sec) >> > > >> > > Try to figure out why id=7 is selected here? >> > > >> > > Because: >> > > resource_tags.resource_id='2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60' >> > > >> > > Matched unintentionally, because mysql converted uuid to int and got 2 >> > > which is matched to resource_id of 2 (id=7). >> > > >> > > 22 нояб. 2017 г. 6:23 ПП пользователь "Rafael Weingärtner" < >> > > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> написал: >> > > >> > > > Ah, ok now it makes sense the "IN", I thought you were only talking >> > about >> > > > single values. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I do not think that the UUID (resource UUID) is the representation >> of >> > ID >> > > > value in Hexadecimal, if it is we could simply get rid of one of >> them. >> > I >> > > > really dislike these search criteria...I am not seeing what you are >> > > saying. >> > > > Let´s see this in SQL, so we can discuss. >> > > > >> > > > SELECT * FROM resource_tags >> > > > WHERE (resource_id in (....) OR resource_uuid in (...)) >> > > > AND resource_tags.resource_type = 'Account'; >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > That is what the programmer who coded that Search criteria seemed to >> > > want, >> > > > right? I mean, the developer wanted to select resources that match >> > either >> > > > the ID or UUID field. Also, we may have more than a single value to >> > > filter >> > > > in both ID and UUID. I am also assuming that UUID does not >> necessarily >> > > > represents the ID as a hexadecimal. >> > > > >> > > > The problem seems to be when it is being translated: >> > > > >> > > > > ( resource_tags.resource_id='2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440e >> a60' >> > > > > OR >> > > > > resource_tags.resource_uuid=_binary'2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f- >> > > > 9465-c1bc5440ea60' >> > > > > ) >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > It is not even using an “IN” structure in the SQL. Also, why is the >> > > > resource_id equals the UUID in the filter. Did you check the entity >> > that >> > > is >> > > > being sent as an example? Are the fields ID and UUID set with the >> same >> > > > values? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > P.S. Normally the ID field of entities is not exposed to users via >> API. >> > > The >> > > > field ID in the API is translated to UUID in ACS. The field ID in >> the >> > > > database is intended as a dummy primary key for the table. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev < >> > > > kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, Rafael, 'IN" because API call assumes that several resourceIds >> > can >> > > be >> > > > > provided, so IN solves it, EQ doesn't. >> > > > > >> > > > > But despite semantics ID/UUID you see that ID is integer and UUID >> is >> > > > string >> > > > > and that comparison does fault positive results, next when object >> > > access >> > > > > for caller is checked exception occured and no tag removal happen >> as >> > a >> > > > > result because int(2) eq '2afcffdsfdsfds-... (UUID)". >> > > > > >> > > > > 2017-11-22 18:01 GMT+07:00 Rafael Weingärtner < >> > > > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com >> > > > > >: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Are ID and UUID set with the same values in that entity? If not, >> > the >> > > > > > criteria seem correct. I mean, it is trying to filter for an ID >> if >> > it >> > > > > > exists or by UUID if it exists in the entity that is passed as >> an >> > > > > example. >> > > > > > What I do not understand is that they are using “ >> > > SearchCriteria.Op.IN >> > > > ”, >> > > > > > but >> > > > > > in my opinion, it should be “SearchCriteria.Op.EQ”. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev < >> > > > > > kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, I found interesting behaviour with tags: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mysql> SELECT resource_tags.id, resource_tags.uuid, >> > > > resource_tags.key, >> > > > > > > resource_tags.value, resource_tags.domain_id, >> > > > resource_tags.account_id, >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_id, resource_tags.resource_uuid, >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_type, resource_tags.customer FROM >> > > > resource_tags >> > > > > > > WHERE ( resource_tags.resource_id='2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465- >> > > > > > c1bc5440ea60' >> > > > > > > OR >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_uuid=_binary'2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f- >> > > > > > 9465-c1bc5440ea60' >> > > > > > > ) >> > > > > > > AND resource_tags.resource_type = 'Account'; >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > > > > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > > > > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > > > > > | id | uuid | key | value | >> > > > > domain_id | >> > > > > > > account_id | resource_id | resource_uuid >> | >> > > > > > > resource_type | customer | >> > > > > > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > > > > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > > > > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > > > > > | 7 | 95a1a314-2247-4622-a33f-b9b2680bc2e1 | test | me | >> > > > > 1 >> > > > > > | >> > > > > > > 2 | 2 | 3199fc71-cf39-11e7-af5d-dc0ea16ecd7f >> | >> > > > > Account >> > > > > > > | NULL | >> > > > > > > | 10 | 6c247aa1-5524-4910-9b5f-c6cfd9b3bdd9 | test3 | me | >> > > > > 1 >> > > > > > | >> > > > > > > 4 | 4 | 2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60 >> | >> > > > > Account >> > > > > > > | NULL | >> > > > > > > | 12 | 25fb7848-af34-42f7-855e-0f5909a4e979 | test5 | me2 | >> > > > > 1 >> > > > > > | >> > > > > > > 4 | 4 | 2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60 >> | >> > > > > Account >> > > > > > > | NULL | >> > > > > > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > > > > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > > > > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > > > > > 3 rows in set, 1 warning (0.01 sec) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Don't see that "resource_type" is "account". I just play with >> it. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Take a look at ID=7. This row is found because: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_id='2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440e >> a60' >> > > > when >> > > > > > > right >> > > > > > > part is converted to int. Corresponding code is here: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/87ef8137534fa79810 >> > > > > 1f65c6691fcf >> > > > > > > 71513ac978/server/src/com/cloud/tags/TaggedResourceManagerIm >> > > > > pl.java#L301 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sb.and().op("resourceId", sb.entity().getResourceId(), >> > > > > > > SearchCriteria.Op.IN); >> > > > > > > sb.or("resourceUuid", sb.entity().getResourceUuid(), >> > > > > > SearchCriteria.Op.IN >> > > > > > > ); >> > > > > > > sb.cp(); >> > > > > > > sb.and("resourceType", sb.entity().getResourceType(), >> > > > > > > SearchCriteria.Op.EQ); >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't know why the writer uses "resourceId" or >> "resourceUuid". >> > I >> > > > > > suppose >> > > > > > > it's a bug and code should be transformed to: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sb.and("resourceUuid", sb.entity().getResourceUuid(), >> > > > > > SearchCriteria.Op.IN >> > > > > > > ); >> > > > > > > sb.and("resourceType", sb.entity().getResourceType(), >> > > > > > > SearchCriteria.Op.EQ); >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Or MySQL query should be transformed to: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mysql> SELECT resource_tags.id, resource_tags.uuid, >> > > > resource_tags.key, >> > > > > > > resource_tags.value, resource_tags.domain_id, >> > > > resource_tags.account_id, >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_id, resource_tags.resource_uuid, >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_type, resource_tags.customer FROM >> > > > resource_tags >> > > > > > > WHERE ( concat("%", resource_tags.resource_id) = >> > > > > > > '2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60' OR >> > > > > > > resource_tags.resource_uuid=_binary'2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f- >> > > > > > 9465-c1bc5440ea60' >> > > > > > > ) >> > > > > > > AND resource_tags.resource_type = 'Account'; >> > > > > > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > > > > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > > > > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > > > > > | id | uuid | key | value | >> > > > > domain_id | >> > > > > > > account_id | resource_id | resource_uuid >> | >> > > > > > > resource_type | customer | >> > > > > > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > > > > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > > > > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > > > > > | 10 | 6c247aa1-5524-4910-9b5f-c6cfd9b3bdd9 | test3 | me | >> > > > > 1 >> > > > > > | >> > > > > > > 4 | 4 | 2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60 >> | >> > > > > Account >> > > > > > > | NULL | >> > > > > > > | 12 | 25fb7848-af34-42f7-855e-0f5909a4e979 | test5 | me2 | >> > > > > 1 >> > > > > > | >> > > > > > > 4 | 4 | 2a4264fb-9f63-4d4f-9465-c1bc5440ea60 >> | >> > > > > Account >> > > > > > > | NULL | >> > > > > > > +----+--------------------------------------+-------+------- >> > > > > > > +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------------- >> > > > > > > ------------------+---------------+----------+ >> > > > > > > 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Let me your thoughts and I'll fix it. Right now, obviously >> it's a >> > > > bug. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev >> > > > > > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. >> > > > > > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 <+7%20923%20414-15-15> >> > > > > > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Rafael Weingärtner >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev >> > > > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. >> > > > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 >> > > > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Rafael Weingärtner >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Rafael Weingärtner >> > >> > > > > -- > Rafael Weingärtner > -- Rafael Weingärtner
