Closed
Bug 988321
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
require human validation for large database changes
Categories
(Testing Graveyard :: Mozpool, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: arich, Assigned: dustin)
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
3.81 KB,
patch
|
dividehex
:
review+
pmoore
:
feedback+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.75 KB,
patch
|
dividehex
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In bug 988281 changes were made to inventory which resulted in the data sync deleting all but one (unchanged) panda. We should put code in place so that massive deletes/additions require human intervention and verification like we do for dns/dhcp.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
What does "massive" mean in this case? How should a human approve of such changes?
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
I'd say we'd want human validation on more than a few chassis worth of changes? Maybe 35 boards? I know that with dns updates, it flags the change and notifies oncall (I think) so that they have to run a script to push the changes manually with a --ship-it flag. We should be able to do something similar with the sync script, right?
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
The idea here is that someone would need to login to the mobile-imaging admin host and run MOZPOOL_CONFIG=/opt/mozpool/config.ini /opt/mozpool/frontend/bin/mozpool-inventorysync --verbose --ship-it after a substantial modification of inventory. We'll get a nice test of this when we rename all of the pandas in the move.
Assignee: nobody → dustin
Attachment #8397175 -
Flags: review?(jwatkins)
Attachment #8397175 -
Flags: feedback?(pmoore)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8397182 -
Flags: review?(jwatkins)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8397182 -
Flags: review?(jwatkins) → review+
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8397175 [details] [diff] [review] bug988321.patch I personally would have opted for ANY changes require a hand run and produce mail till that happens. But this works also. >+ # if there are too many changes, bail out >+ if len(tasks) > max(5, len(from_db) / 10, len(from_inv) / 10) and not ship_it: >+ raise RuntimeError("%d changes: pass --ship-it to make these changes" % len(tasks)) >+ There should probably be a little more explanation in the comment as to what constitutes "too many changes" Other than that, looks good.
Attachment #8397175 -
Flags: review?(jwatkins) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Will be in 4.2.0
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8397175 -
Flags: feedback?(pmoore) → feedback+
Updated•8 years ago
|
Product: Testing → Testing Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•