Skip to content

added part count and content range validation for download request #6353

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Fred1155
Copy link
Contributor

@Fred1155 Fred1155 commented Aug 18, 2025

Motivation and Context

For the part get request for S3 transfer manager, When a response is received, the S3 Transfer Manager MUST check the value of ContentRange and validate that it matches with the expected range for the specific part number. After all requests have been sent, we should validate that the total number of part GET requests sent matches with the expected PartsCount. This PR implements the validation.

Modifications

Added validation method in MultipartDownloaderSubscriber class

Testing

Added wiremock test for failed test

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • Local run of mvn install succeeds
  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
  • I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • All new and existing tests passed
  • I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
  • My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

  • I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

@Fred1155 Fred1155 requested a review from a team as a code owner August 18, 2025 17:42
Comment on lines 177 to 184
String actualContentRange = response.contentRange();
if (actualContentRange != null && partSize == null) {
getRangeInfo(actualContentRange);
log.debug(() -> String.format("Part size of the object to download: " + partSize));
log.debug(() -> String.format("Total Content Length of the object to download: " + totalContentLength));
}

validateContentRange(totalComplete, actualContentRange);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like there a race on the partSize and totalContentLength, since reading them is done outside of the lock. Or do we know that they won't change per part so it's safe?

Can you explain why it's safe to have multiple get object results modifying the part size and total content length in parallel before we do (again, potentially parallel) validation on them?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The MultipartDownloaderSubscriber sends request and receives request one at a time in sequence, so it won't receive responses in parallel ideally. Also totalContentLength should be the same for all the responses. However, I realized that the partSize is not the same for different part and the validation for contentRange is removed from the requirement, so I'll update the PR for that

@@ -117,6 +128,7 @@ public void onNext(AsyncResponseTransformer<GetObjectResponse, GetObjectResponse

synchronized (lock) {
if (totalParts != null && nextPartToGet > totalParts) {
validatePartsCount(completedParts.get());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we create a variable for completedParts.get() before line 127 so that we don't have to call .get again here?

Can we also move this line after line 122

Copy link

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
75.9% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

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.

3 participants