hani-fouladgar commented on PR #11218:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ozone/pull/11218#issuecomment-5763956028

   > Adding an SCM can fail if the node list is applied before it
   
   Thanks, that's a fair read — both cases are inherent to per-key validation, 
and I agree grouped/atomic validation of ozone.scm.nodes.<svc> together with 
the ozone.scm.address.<svc>.* keys is the clean fix.
   
   What this PR guarantees today is the safety property: an unresolvable node 
list fails and is rolled back (visible as FAILED, retriable), so the live 
configuration never ends up holding an SCM without an address, and 
getServiceList() stays consistent. The two residuals are usability, not 
correctness:
   - node-list-before-address needs the address set first (or a retry) — same 
two-pass behavior as the datanode, which skips an unresolvable add;
   - an unresolvable address-only change is logged and the previous proxies are 
kept, but the status still reads SUCCESS because a reconfiguration-complete 
callback can't fail the batch.
   
   Closing both properly means adding a batch/pre-validation hook to 
ReconfigurableBase/ReconfigurationHandler, which is shared by the datanode, OM, 
and SCM. Since that changes the shared mechanism, I agree it's better as a 
separate change with a committer's input rather than expanding this PR's scope. 
I'll file a follow-up HDDS Jira for grouped SCM-config validation and link it 
here — happy to take it on once there's a committer's steer on the approach. 
Does deferring those two cases to that follow-up sound reasonable for this PR?


-- 
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]

Reply via email to